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

A conspiracy may be committed
without any overt act, and conse-
quently an indictment for conspiracy
need not express an overt act, but
may be expressed in general terms.
30th of Maine p. $50 in the State
VS.. Riply, The indictment in this
case contains two counts, one is that
defendant conspircd with another to
iniure one Henry X. Barker, the
other that they did maliciously in
jure the person of said Barker. In
the first court the Indictment simply
stated that there was conspiracy.
So in this case we charge con-
spiracy. He also quoted several
other authorities in support of his
argument that it was not necessary
TO state that an overt act had been
committed.
We here set forth a combination
to do criminal act, ''to w.t. q
gross cheat, but we have set forth
more, we state that they did conf
nit an overt act, therefore l say
that the first court must stand.
Mr.. Hatch stated that gross
cheat must refer TO tangible thing,
but l think he has gone beyond the
the Indictment. | submit that the
revenues of the country is money,
but as matter of fact the
duties on these goods were not paid.
The revenues to which we here re-
fer are the right to collect certain
monies, and to keep said money
from the Government, is within the
meaning of gross cheat. We aver
that they did conspire to defraud,
and cheat the Government out of
$500. the Hawaiian Government
is person within the meaning of
the statute. He cited the statute
governing this, and maintained that
it did cover the Hawaiian Govern
ment in such cases as this. He also
cited foreign authorities to prove
that community is person. He
submitted that the Hawaiian Gov
eminent under our statute is per-
son, and it might be very embarrass-
ing to the Government not to be so
considered. 1t could not have been
the design of the Legislature to
allow the Government to be at the
mercy of boodlers, scalawags, and
cheats, and not allowed the same
protection as private individual.
The statute of limitation clause
cannot apply to this criminal action.
We are not prosecuting these per-
sons for any violation of the revenue
laws, but for a conspiracy to do so.
He then cited an authority on
analogous offences, and stated that
this was prosecution analogous
to violation of revenue laws, and
that conspiracy to commit any of
those offences is not limited by that
statute. This is a separate and dis
tinct offence. A conspiracy to COM
init an offence, and the actual COM
mitment of the offence are separate
and distinct. We have brought the
charges within the statutory condi-
tions and it is not necessary to bring
anything but bald charge. 1t is
undoubtedly an offence to conspire
to do anything wrongfully injurious
to another, and it is an offence to
do anything that will deprive the
Government of its just dues.
1t was contended that wrong
fully, meant criminally. I don't
think so. But should it be so, L
think it can be shown that the Ha-
waiian Government has been crimi-
nally wronged. Can it be contend
ed that conspiracy to deprive the
Government of collecting its duties
is not criminal? The life of any
government is its revenue, therefore
/ submit that if conspiracy is
formed to defraud the Government
such an act is criminal. 1t has been
contended that nothing has been
taken from the Government, but l
contend that am as much injured
by person keeping me from collect
ing my just dues, as l would be by
having man put his hand in my
pocket and rob me.
In regard to the 3rd count, he
quoted from lue CrlLulllul law Ic-
ports of America, showing that q
conspiracy is felony, and if carried
out as in the case quoted, that OF
''robbing person. would consti-
tute two distinct crimes, robbery
and larceny. What would be the
sense of our alleging felonious act
if it were legal. 1t was asserted
that it was absurd to charge one Of
conspiracy, but if Mr.. Luce or Mr.
Macfarane conspired with CO.
conspirator to defraud, it is not
necessary that, as in this case, Mr..
Haley should have had anything tc
do with the consummation of the
crime. The statute says that il
anyone shall be knowingly concerned
in defrauding the revenue, ETC., they
shall be subject to fine of $500.
The counsel for the defence seem
ed to talk around the topic. Al
the illustrations that they drew die
not help their arguments. The
statute says you shall not do so an6
so. We allege that they did do Sc
and so. We do not say unla wfully
because the very act of so doing is
unlawful. And il is not necessar,
for us to aver that the liquors wer
not imported for so and so. AL