The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-04-19

QuCSllOll ulloSS, VlN llC NollopllN w
cheat?
These are the three counts, the
substance of which is lst. To cheat
the Hawaiian Government out of
$500. 2d. To combine with Haley
to defraud the Government 3rd.
To be knowingly concerned in re-
moving these goods from the Gus
tom House without paying duties.
The 2nd Count does not aver that
the act was done maliciously or de-
signedly.
The 3rd Count appears to be de-
fective l suppose by the slip of the
pen as it is made TO say against the
laws of the Hawaiian Government.
There are no such laws; there are
laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The entire indictment is bad as il
charges the violation of the revenue
law IN jan, 1887, and this suit was
not brought until after 6 months
from the time the crime was said to
be committed.
Criminal prosecutions are includ-
ed in the sections which limit the
time for bringing an action-here
the counsel quoted the law in regard
to this matter. L. $. VS.. Watkins,
and 3rd grant.
Another objection which is sus-
tanned by several of the States of
the United States is, that it is essen
tial that the false pretences must be
described, Charging man with
gross cheat is not sufficient, but it
must be specified in what way q
gross cheat was committed. There
should be q minute description OF
the offence. There is no allegation
that this act was done maliciously
or fraudulently. To obstruct the
Government is not the same as OBJ
structing an officer of the Govern
ment. | claim there is no such sta
tutory or common law as cheating
the Government. 1t is possible and
reasonable and correct that certain
kinds of cheats affect the public
generally, when it would not be cor
rect to say that it affects the Gov
ernment. A Government is not the
public generally. Trade marks
would be cheating the public gene
rally, and would be indictable.
If the revenues were defrauded
then it would be correct, but the
statute defines, that getting goods
into the country fraudulently, by
falsifying invoices, smuggling, etc,
is defrauding the revenue, but TAX
ing goods from the Custom House
in the usual way is not defrauding
the revenue.
The L. S. statute makes it a
criminal offence TO do anything to
defraud the Government of its
revenue, and l contend that unless
there is a statute, there is no Of
fence. The original meaning of
conspiracy is not criminal. Our
statute on conspiracy defines that
conspiracy is "to do what is obvi.
ously, wrongfully injurious to others.
Then on indictment for conspiracy
must state that n criminal act has
been committed or an injury has
been done to another The word
"another" cannot be held to mean
the Hawaiian Government; if any
offence has been committed it was
against the people.
l do not know why it should not
have been averred that an officer of
the revenue had been defrauded un-
less it was that there was no evil
dence to prove such charge. A
person cannot be imposed upon,
cheated or defrauded, when he is
personally conversant with what is
going on. IL the officer knew upor
what grounds the goods were with
drawn, then the complaint falls tt
the ground.
There are many wrong thing
done in transactions between maj
and man, which the Court has n,
jurisdiction over, such as cheatin;
in q horse trade, false promises
ETC., ETC., and he has no right t
have it regarded rs public griey
ance, when it could be guarde
against by common prudence on hi
part. The Government as Coy
ernment cannot be deceived, til
officers may be, but the Governmer
not.
No violation of statute law
averred. The last clause of tn
second count can in no case be hel
to imply a criminal action or a
action OF tort.
S Some of the "to wits" have n
1 object or sense, and there is
studied care that the liquors upo
. which $500 duties are due, are N
specified, and j contend that the
: should be. 1t also does not stat
that these liquors were not alowc
G to be withdrawn from the CustoI
House free of duties for the use (
t the King, Queen, Government {
diplomatic representatives.
e The right to collect duties is M
S thing it is a right. If the cor
5 spiracy had been to deprive Il
: Collector General of monies he ha
: already collected, then my argl
s ment would not hold water, br
b such was not the case. False pr,
: tences must be the falsifying of q
existing fact.
. The third count / claim does nj
r