The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-03-15


the duty of the Attorney General to
state, orally or in writing, what the Of
tense was and the particulars of it. That
was the universal practice.
Mr.. Neumann asked why then man
should not be arrested for conspiracy
and then charged with murder. If
charge is made it must be the offense on
which the arrest is made. The COM
plant should contain the particulars of
the Indictment.
Mr.. Hatch: Enough should be stated
to show that it is an illegal conspiracy.
Mr.. Ashford then read the charges in
this case, which were substantially, that
a certain day in October last, Mr.. Hay
selden did procure from His Majesty the
King, his signature to certain orders on
the Custom House, for liquors, and that
the said Hayselden did give to G. w.
Macfarlane, the papers signed by the
King, to be filled out by Macfarlane, in
order to cheat, and defraud the Govern
ment out of the duties on said liquors,
and that the said Macfarlane did fill out
the said blank orders, and obtained
from the Custom House on said orders
liquors, the duty on which would have
amounted to $4,749 So, ostensibly for the
private use and consumption of His
Majesty, but really to cheat and defraud
the Government, and that the said q.
w. Macfarlane did order to have placed
to the credit OF F. H. Hayselden, the
sum of 81, 749 50, that amount being due
to O.. w. Macfarlane by F. II. Haysel-
den on that date, thereby defrauding
and cheating the Government out of the
sum of $4,749 50.
The Court then adjourned to l p. m.
LUCE's CASE RESUMED.
On reassembling Mr. Ashford read the
charge against w. S. Luce, alleging that
he had, with the connivance of \. B.
Hayley withdrawn from the Custom
House certain liquors, evading the paw
ment of duty amounting to some $500,
thereby defrauding the Government,
falsely representing that the liquors were
for the private consumption of SignOr A.
De Souza CannavarO, Portuguese Com
missioner, portion of the sum named,
to wit, $500, being credited by Luce to
Hayley.
Mr.. Hartwell said the defense were not
ready to say anything to the charge
They had come to argue the motion on
the search warrant.
~. I,
not yet before the Court. He was in
doubt whether it had anything to do
with the case.
Mr. Peterson thought it was prema-
ture at present.
His Honor said it would sustain an
action for damages, but it was not in the
case refore the Court. He thought they
should wait until it was offered in evil
dence.
Mr. Hartwell argued that the damage
would then be done.
Mr.. Hatch supplemented the argu-
ment, urging in the course OF his re-
marks that the books of the firm having
been seized, the business would have to
be closed until such time as the case
came on for trial The question as to
whether these books could be produced
in evidence was another question.
Mr.. Peterson contended that even if
the search warrant were illegal, that
would have no bearing on the present
case. The other side would have their
remedy in an action for damages.
Mr. Ashford suggested that it would
be within the nature of suit in replevin
and asked that the motion be dismissed.
His Honor still thought there was
nothing before the Court.
Mr.. Hartwell held that if the seizure
were unauthorized the articles must be
restored. There was something before
the Court, namely motion. If a seiz-
ure OF this kind were authorized by law
Though be did not believe it was, but If
it were) he would not honor this country
bv living in it. He characterized it as
tyrannical and if it were upheld by law
no ones private affairs would be safe.
Mr.. Hatch then spoke at some length,
contendnig that they were entitled to be
heard on the motion. If not, and a con-
viction were obtained upon the strength
of the evidence procured by virtue ofthe
search warrant, which might subse-
uuently be shown to be illegal, it would
be proving a conviction by illegal means.
The Court then decided to hear argu-
ments and take the matter into consider
alton.
Mr.. Hatch presented the argument
from a statutory standpoint and Mr..
Hartwell from the constitutional.
Mr.. Peterson replied to the statutory
argument and Mr. Ashford to the con-