The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-04-21

aUulng merely the tacJ OF falSe
pretenses without specifying them.
There is the same omission,
which now implies that there are no
facts to supply it, to aver by whom
the goods were imported, and to
negative the payment or securing
of payment of duties thereon when
imported, as required law, or that
they were imported for the use of
the King, Government or diplomatic
representatives, and therefore ex-
empt from duties. Omitting the
description of the false pretences is
for no conceivable reason unless that
they cannot be proved, or that some
essential element in them, like
knowledge, or intent is wanting, or
that some fact existed, like consent
or full knowledge on the part of the
Government" which precluded the
possibility of deceiving them.
In all the cases where a descrip-
ton of theintended means is
held to be unnecessary, the ruling is
based on the sole ground that a
conspiracy is complete Gas it is at
common law by an illegal agree
ment. But our statute requires
more.
The third count could be laid
against any transhipment in bond Of
dutiable goods. There should be
an averment that were used or kept
IN this country.
Mr.. Hatch said that the first count
was a conspiracy to commit a gross
cheat. Now, gross cheat under
our statute, is very different from
cheating, gross cheat is statu-
tory offence, and nothing not speci-
fed in that statute is gross cheat,
Che then read the statute). Gross
cheat means TO deprive another of
an existing tangible thing, and not
the right of having a certain thing,
the right of collecting duties is a
chosen thing. If the duties have
been collected then he has the mo-
ney in his hands. He has not been
deprived of his right to collect du-
ties.
The right to collect duties is not
q thing, it is a right. If the con-
spiracy had been to deprive the
Collector General of monies he had
already collected, then my argu-
ment would not hold water, but
such was not the case. False pre-
tenccs must be the falsifying of an
existing fact
The third count | claim does not
state that both parties are concerned
in the offence. 1t is impossible for
two people to conspire, and one
only to know anything about it.
1t seems that the name of Haley
is simply put in the Indictment to
make out the offence of conspiracy,
as one person cannot conspire with
himself to commit crime. The count
does not state that they conspired
to remove those goods, nor does il
state that they conspired to do any,
thing, and L contend that it does
not show that they conspired TO un
lawfully remove goods. How Cal
there be any conspiracy to remove
goods from the custody of the Col
lector-General. 1t is not an of
fence to take these goods from the
Collector-General Of Customs, ant
if that is so, then no conspiracy car
be maintained.
). The Attorney-Gencral said it wa!
not fairly clear to his mind what the
; argument on the two indictments
was, whether the one argument EN-
braced both or not.
Mr.. Neumann stated that th
legal definition of conspiracy wa
not applicable to this case.
The crime of conspiracy is yer,
elastic, and / suppose that is wA,
the Crown has brought this action
instead of making a specific charge
as they could not prove it. Their
) must have been combination t.
makea breach oflaw, or else there i
no conspiracy, and the indiotmcn
, must state what the combination
was. To simply state that such
combination did exist, without speci
flying how and in what manner, i
not sufficient, therefore | claim tina
the first count cannot stand.
, The second count must fall OF
, the face of it. Ii the law is to b
construed in this way, then th
Acknowledgement and Mr.. Peterso
can be prosecuted for conspiracy i
| indicting Mr.. Luce for committing
a crime, but / do not believe tina
: the law can be so construed. "Th
; community is not the Government
The whole count is fallacious, AM
no offence is averred. The Attor
, ney-General, no doubt, is trying t
{ bring case which he thinks is in
t dictable, but which we think i
= spurious, and shall defend. Th
count as specified cannot hold, a
5 there can be no conspiracy in dc
} manding goods that are in the hand
of the Customs officials. 1t is n
1 impossibility to obstruct the Ila
I waiian Government in the collectio
t of its duties. For the purpose c
7 constituting an offence we have t
be brought within section GG5 of tn
> Penal Code. The Indictment doe
: not state who is being obstructeC