The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-05-01
Demurrers overruled.

4ue IullZ OF Iu6 OOL4I OA NEC
damurrers to indictments in the con
spiracy cases, argued and submitted
O Thursday OF last week, was given
on Monday week by Judge Dole.
Following is the full text Of the
ruling:
The King vs.. W. S. Luce Con
spiracy. Ruling upon demurrer to
the indictment.
Conspiracy, II this country, is a
statutory offence, and is a malicious
O. fraudulent combination for the
purpose Of committing an offence, or
lnstigating any one thereto or charg
ing any one Herewith; or for the
purpose Of doing something which
tends to excite or occasion offence, or
which Is obviously and directly
Brongfully injurious to another.
The first division Of the description,
1t Is conceded, refers to combinations
for criminal objects, and think there
can be no doubt that the last part
refers to injuries which might be the
foundation Of actions Of tort but
for which criminal prosecutions might
not lie
The first and third counts Of the
Indictment charge a conspiracy to
commit statutory offences. and are
therefore covered by the first part OF
the statutory description, while the
second count falls within the latter
part.
Ii is objected to the first count that
it does not sufficiently describe the
statutory offence Of gross cheat which
Is charged therein to be the object Of
the conspiracy.
There is no question but that the
weight of authority is to the effect
that in an Indictment for conspiracy
to commit a statutory offence, the
offence must be set forth with greater
detail than where the object of the
conspiracy is alleged to be common
law offence. But do not find that
II Is necessary, particularly when no
overt acts are averred, to set forth
the particular acts and instruments
by which the object of the conspiracy
was intended to be accomplished. 1t
Is sufficient if the description Of the
proposed offence defines it as a statu
tory offence Commonwealth vs..
Eastman ct al. l. Cush. 226, with this
modification as to statutory offences,
the authority of Rex vs.. Gill is still
IL force.
The first count charges, in effect,
that the defendant did fraudulently
and feloniously conspire with one
A. B. Haley to deprive the Hawaiian
Government of certain of its legal
revenues, by false pretences and with
intent to defraud. and to commit an
offence against the laws of the Ha-
Waiian Kingdom. to wit, the offence
of gross cheat. One of the statutory
definitions of gross cheat is as fol
lows. -Whoeyer shall designedly,
by any false pretence, and with intent
to defraud. obtain from another any
money. goods or other thing of
value, is guilty of a gross cheat
The false pretence and intent to de
fraud being alleged in the indict-
ment, it seems to me that the offence
Is sufficiently brought within the sta
tutory description; the omission of
the word ''designedly" is immaterial,
because intent to defraud implies de
sign.
1 find in the statute of conspiracy
another support to the first count:
one of the Instances given IN section
first Of the statute, Of what matters
and things may be objects of conspi-
racy is the following: "To cheat an
other by means of false tokens and
pretences." Now the first count
clearly alleges a conspiracy to cheat
the Hawaiian Government of certain
Of its revenues by false pretenees.
But it is argued by counsel for the
defendant that the word another" in
the statute of gross cheat, may not
be held to apply to the Ha-
waiian Government. l have no diff
Guilty in holding that it may so apply,
under the authority of chapter l,
section 6 of the Penal Code The
Hawaiian Government Is representa-
tive of the public and the nation and
the words have about the sane tech
meal character as the word king"
when used as the plaintiff in public
prosecutions IN this country or the
word People" as similarly used in
the United States of America.
A further objection to the first
Is that The removal of the
goods in question without paying the
duties that were due on them, was
not cheating the Government of its
revenues, as cheating by our sta
tute Is obtaining something by
false pretence. etc, whereas no
revenues were obtained from the
Government, none having been col
lected by it. 1t seems to me that
this is going outside of the count,
there being no allegation which in
forms the Court of she manner in
which it was intended to carry out
the cheat or whether the intention
was to deprive the Government of
revenues already in its possession OF
TO prevent it from collecting revenues
7Up If