The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-04-21
A recess was here taken until
o'clock p. NJ.
AFTERNOON SESSION.

1he Attorney-General commenced
argument in support of the indict-
ments.
In replying to reasons that have
been aduced as to why these counts
in the indictment are not sufficient,
will take them as they were offer
ed. The opposite counsel stated
that there was difficulty in the
case as the Chief Justice made the
commitment, but unless there is
reasonable doubt in your honor's
mind that these counts are not sutfi-
cient, the demuwers must be dis
missed.
Several days were consumed in
the preliminary examination, and
His Honor the Chief Justice did not
commit the defendants until after
due deliberation and the consulta-
ton of several authorities, and in
consequence, l submit that Your
Honor should not overrule these in
dictments, until it is clearly demon
strated to Your Honor that they
cannot hold. Any adverse ruling
of the Court to the Crown, espe-
cially in case like this, where the
indictments have been prepared to
the best of our ability, and in ac-
cordance with the law, is injurious
to the prosecution.
These are the pioneer prosecutions
of this kind, and it is desirable that
the people should know exactly
what the law is in regard to these
matters. If Il conspiracy cannot be
maintained according to our laws,
then it will be The duty of the Legis-
lature to enact such laws, as will
bring to justice such offenders.
1t has been stated that the first
count does not set forth a crime. A
conspiracy is a malicious concerting
together of two or more to commit
an offence. The argument before
the Chief Justice that this was not a
conspiracy was not well received by
him.
We have alleged three offences
expressly defined by the Penal Code:
1st. To defraud the Hawaiian Gov
ernment. But it has been argued
that we should be more explicit.
We have said that they did conspire
to commit an offence, to wit, a gross
cheat. The consistency of the op-
posite counsel was not observable
in alleging that there were no overt
acts specified. The statutes say
that it is not necessary that any
overt act shall be done, but that it
shall be attempted. 1t seems al
most unnecessary to read authori-
ties in support of this.
The authorities are generally to
the effect that to specify the crime
in an Indictment is all that is neces-
sary. The elements of the crime
are matters of proof. The indict-
ment does set forth crime, defined
by statute, IA conspiracy to
commit gross cheat" A case more
nearly in line with that before the
Court is one in I'd Wharton, indict-
ments and pleas. That was an in
dictment presented against the de-
PENDANTS for obtaining goods from
the Customs of London without the
payment of duties.
The substance of the two indict-
ments are the same. This case
shows that they conspired to defraud
the Hawaiian Government of certain
duties, and in the case cited the
Court held that the Indictment was
sufficient.
1t was held in another case cited
that it was only sufficient to set out
the act and the object for which il
was done. We have set forth that
the defendants did conspire to de-
fraud the Hawaiian Government out
of $500. We also stated that they
conspired to cheat, debar and de-
fraud another, and as there sci
forth, these are acts that constitute
a gross cheat. The gross chea,
does not stand alone, but is quail
fed by what goes before, to wit, tt
cheat, debar and defraud another
to wit, the Hawaiian Government.
We also say that they combined
together to cheat, defraud and in
jure another. The construction tt
be given this sentence by the Cour
is, that they intended by com
bining together, to defraud the Ha-
waiian Government.
Similar indictments have been up
held, although the opposite coun
sci said that all the authorities were
against such indictments, but they
did not cite any of them. l hay,
found that many respectable autho
rites state that it is not necessary Il
specify, in what way the crime wa'
committed.
That portion of the indlctmen
that accuses them of fraudulent,
conspiring to defraud the Govern
ment is sufficiently upheld by author
tiles to be sustained here. He citet
a case in which party was con
victed of conspiracy where there wa
, no specific charge in the indictment
but simply that there was con
spiracy to defraud. He also citeC
other authorities that no overt ac
need be committed, and that i
would only be sufficient to show tina
they met together for the purpos
of consulting as to how they shoul(
, pronaa1 IN nnmmit q nriun op1 /