The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-03-13

two subscribers of that name, one in
Palama, the other on Beretania street:
both kept stores.
Cross-examined: Think the time l
delivered papers to the two Vim Quons
was up to November 80 1887; not posi-
tive of delivery to both up to that
time; knew both men personally; do
not know if the man is still keeping
store on Beretania street; the store
was near the bridge, this side of Ma
unakea street; took his name off the
list that was furnished me; delivered
papers to that name in two places; that
is all know about it.
Mr.. Creighton addressed the Court
on behalf of the defendant. The ar
ticle was published in good faith from
a proper motive, and it was therefore
justifiable. Mr.. Hill was led to be-
lieve that Vim Quon was the name of
the man in charge of the animals.
His honor having seen the animals
was himself aware of their disgusting,
sickening condition, and the article,
in Sc far as that was concerned, was q
public benefit. Counsel quoted author
ity to show that under the circum-
stances the article did not contain
libel. The Deputy Marshal testified
that the article was all correct save in
the name. English and Chinese mer-
chants knowing that YIN Quon was
in China laughed, not at Vim QuOn
but at the idea that man who was in
China could have been arrested on
this island. Therefore Vim Quon suf-
fered no odium or injury whatever
h. sgF,o Il
on to argue, the rice and the mules
being Vim Quon's, he was the man
responsible in law for the condition of
the mules. He also contended that it
was not libelous simply to say that
man was arrested under charge of an
offense. Moreover, from the fact that
Chinese commonly have a plurality of
names, it was necessary for committal
that it should have been established,
more clearly than it had been, that the
man arrested did not have as one
name that of Vim Quon. In conclu-
sion, he held that no jury would con-
Wet Mr.. Hill of libel on the evidence
heard; therefore he asked for the dis
charge of his client.
Mr.. Ashford closed for the prosecu-
ton. He claimed that the reprehen-
sible character of the offense mention
ed in the report ENLARGED the objec-
tionable nature of the publication.
The law bound them to judge the
question of malice by the facts, a man
being responsible for the consequences
of his acts. As to different names sug-
gested that was neither here nor there.
Nothing but hearsay was before them
TO show that this man bore the nsme
Vim Quon. While that might not be
q libel to those who knew that the
person arrested could not be Vim
Quon, yet to every individual who had
not such knowledge it was clear libel.
Counsel cited several authorities as to
where and how responsibility for
ibellous publications lies. Malice was
to be presumed upon absence of lawful
excuse. 1t made not a particle of diff
ference whether this report actually
injured YIN Quon. That was ques-
ton affecting an action for civil dam
ages. The report came under our law
when it tended to injure the good fame
and reputation of the complainant.
In concluding, counsel drew dis
tinction between liberty and license of
the press, deprecating what is now
generally known as "trial by news
papers"
Justice Dayton, addressing the de
PENDANT, stated that he had listened
carefully to the evidence and argu-
ments on both sides. He agreed with
counsel for the prosecution that there
had been too much license of the
press in Honolulu of late years. Briefly
reviewing the evidence in this case,
however, he considered he would not
be justified in putting the country to
the expense of sending defendant be-
fore a jury. He therefore discharged
the defendant.