The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-03-14
A Fine Line OF
Ladies' & Misses Shoes,
The Arcade-EGAN & co.

lOTC inc OOuId ullIil uS HAS DcCu
notified to appear.
Mr.. Hatch, for defendant, moved
that the prisoner be released,
as there was no date on the warrant,
and in consequence was informal.
The Acknowledgement argued that
the warrant was legal, and the in
structions to the Marshal contained
in the warrant, were, that he should
arrest the said w. S. Luce, and
bring him before the Court on the
- day of March, (date to be filed
in after the arrest was made), pro-
vided he could be found.
Mr.. Hatch stated that the accused
was not in the custody of the Mar
shall, as he was under bonds to APP
pear, and that he had not yet been
notified to appear.
The Judge allowed the point taken
by the attornys for the defense, that
the date should have been filled in.
He said although there was a SER
ious omission in the warrant, the
law states that the "Marshal must
produce the body within AZ hours"
He also said that he did not under
stand the motion.
Mr.. Hatch stated that the motion
was, to dismiss the complaint, as
the warrant is illegal and cannot be
carried out. The Judge stated that
if Mr.. Luce did not appear, he
could not be made to do so on that
warrant, but on the other hand he
did not see how he could dismiss the
case unless the defendant was pres
ent. He thought that an amendment
could be made to the warrant. The
Deputy Acknowledgement then
moved to insert in the blank space,
"14th day of March at ! p. NJ"
which the Judge allowed.
In the matter of the search war
rant, issued to be returnable forth
with, whereby the books of the de-
PENDANT were seized, Mr.. Hartwell,
attorney for the defense, moved 10
have it quashed as it was illegal and
unauthorized.
The Acknowledgement stated that
if the Court should decide to quash
the warrant, before return was made,
he would ask for time until | p. NJ.
in order TO prepare an argument, as
this is novel case, no such case
ever having been brought before the
Courts of this Kingdom before.
Mr.. Hartwell stated that no statute
on the statute books, nor any article
of the Constitution, authorizes the
procuring of evidence from man
to be used against himself. He then
read the law in regard to search
warrants. He also stated that the
warrant was defective in other res
poets, as it states, all blotters,
ledgers, cash books, ETC., in the
possession of defendant during q
certain month, and not specific
| order for books containing certain
| entries.
Mr.. Whiting asked that the books
seized under the warrant, be pro-
duced in Court, and there held in
the custody of the Court until the
case is decided. He stated as his
reason, that they we're the private
records of q man In business, and
included books not called for in the
warrant.
The Judge decided that the books
were safe in the custody of the Mar
shall, and that they could not be eX-
amined by any one until brought
before the Court as evidence. The
case was then continued until
p. NJ.
The case against Mr.. G. w. Mac
farlane was then called. The At
torney-General produced the war
rant, but the Court asked him if he
wished to have two trials, as the CO.
defendant (Mr. Hayselden), would
not appear for trial until next month
Mr.. Neumann said that as one Of
the attorneys for the defendants, he
was ready for trial, and asked the
Court to proceed.
The Acknowledgement then offer
ed an amendment to the complaint
which Mr.. Hatch for the defense
objected to, and said that the de-
PENDANT should be charged with the
complaint first sworn to, and nc
other. Mr.. Macfarlane is here ready
to stand trial for the offense for
which he was arrested. The Attor-
ney-General argued that warrant
need not be specific it was only
necessary for it to be explicit
enough to warrant the officer to
make the arrest.
The Court ruled that specilica-
tons could be made orally or in
writing, and need not be contained
in the warrant. A warrant of arrest
was not an indictment.
Mr.. Hatch stated that as His
Honor had overruled his objections,
he would say that the general charge
of conspiracy did not constitute al
offense; it must be specified in what
way a conspiracy had Peen com
mittted.
The Acknowledgement then read
the charges in this particular case
which were in substance, that GER
tain day in October last, Mr.. Hay
selden did procure from His Ma
jesty the King. his signature to GER
tain orders on the Custom House
for liquors, and that the said Hay