The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-05-01

Oue0Se, the OrOW0 must prove ana
the jury be satisfied that there was
in fact an actual combining between
the defendant and Hayselden fraud
ulently and knowingly entered into
TO effect q common object
Mere proof of awrong intent by
one Is not sufficient,
The fact of conspiracy must be
proved by clear and satisfactory eyi-
dence beyond any reasonable doubt.
The confederation must be corrupt
or fraudulent and an evil intent Is
necessary to constitute the offense OF
conspiracy.
Amere Cognizance Of fraud or OF
the illegal action OF others Is not sui
ficient to show q conspiracy; an
active participation is necessary or
an acceptance or adoption of a prop
osition of another to do q criminal or
wrongful act
No evidence has been given on
which the defendant could be held
on the first count.
No conspiracy can be inferred from
acts done by others, in pursuance Of
the conspiracy, than the defendant
and Hayselden and their agents.
To find the defendant guilty, you
must find that a definite agreement
OF understanding was entered into
between the defendant and Hay
selden.
II you can reconcile the facts with
innocence you must do so. You can
convict only if from the facts proved
you cannot arrive at any other con
elusion than the defendants guilt.
His Honor continued:
A great deal of testimony has gone
before the jury not applicable to the
case. Possibly evidence not strictly
relevant may have been allowed by
the Court, but it was in order not to
deprive defendant Of every oppor-
tunity to make a complete defense, if
such existed
The defendant is guilty if found to
have been knowingly concerned with
HayseIden in a mutual understand
ing for the removal Of goods from
the Custom House without payment
of duties, unless he was within the
exceptions allowed by the statute. 1t
was necessary for him to show that
he had taken the goods out legally
His Honor here read the law bearing
on Withdrawals without payment of
duties, and specifying who are ex-
empt from the payment of duties).
Defendant had, in order to show his
innocence, to place himself within
these exemptions. It was incumbent
on him to show that he had with
drawn the goods for the use of the
King, representatives Of foreign gov
ernments or the Hawaiian Govern
ment. Goods going into the stock
of a dealer or any one else Is not a
use by or for the King All the i'm
portant testimony centers about this
one issue. THE testimony of Messrs.
Austin and Ashford and the exami-
nation of the books of G.. w. Macfar-
lane 4 Co. by the Attorney General
were here referred to by the Court
The questions relating to what was
called . election gin did not appear
to the Court TO be of SO much i'm
portance as was attached to theAl by
counsel. 1t was a question of fact for
the jury to decide whether the goods
enumerated in the orders, exhibits A,
B and G. were withdrawn for His
Maiesty's use. There We're two sets
of liquors referred to in the evidence,
and it was necessary to distinguish
between them. The first set con
sisted of the liquors withdrawn
in the early part of the year 1885;
the other consisted of the, liquors
set forth in the orders before the
Court, exhibits 4, B and G, and dated
respectively September 10th, Decem-
Der ID and December u. 1886. The
total amount of the RENTED duties
on these three orders comedies with
the amount of the liquors charged to
Hayselden, the lot Of liquors deliv-
cred in the first part Of the year, in
January and February, which had
been referred to as election liquors.
Defendant claims his not knowing
about the details Of the business of
G.. ". Macfarlane & Co. He admits
having threatened Hayselden to sue
him, to which Hayselden said he
would bring an order, upon which
defendant said, Anyway YOU like,
but settle it." The admissions of
man, made voluntarily, as against
his own interest, are regarded in law
as very strong evidence. To convict
defendant, you have to find that he
understood and accepted the arrange
ment alleged to have been made with
Hayselden in regard to the crediting
off of Hayselden's account by the re
mitted duties of goods to be obtained
under the Kings orders. If You find
that Hayselden proposed the arrange
ment and that defendant adopted it;
that is conspiracy. The question is
to ascertain whether conspiracy ex-
listed and whether the conspiracy was
for the removal Of goods from the
Custom House, in the manner al
legged. If the defendant Is found
guilty on the second or third count
or both, it must be in the second de
gree.
The jury retired at 5:45 p. m. to CON
suIt ON their verdict