The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-03-15
SUPREME COURT--lN CHAMBERS
THE CONSPIRACY CASE.

The case was resumed at l p. NJ.
yesterday, w. S. Luce was arraign-
ed on a charge of conspiracy: that
on the 2Sth day of January, 1887,
lie with one A. B. Haley, did con.
spire to defraud the Government out
of certain duties to the amount of
$500, by falsely representing to the
Customs officials that the liquors
called for in the order were for the
private use and consumption of one
A. de SouZa Canavarro, then Portu-
guese Commissioner, aud that upon
said order the said w. S. Luce did
obtain from the Custom House
liquors, the duties on which would
have been $501.15, and placed to
the credit of the said A. b. Haley
the sum of $500, thereby fraudu-
lently cheating and defrauding the
Government out of the said SOL. 10.
The Court asked the Counsel for
defendant if he was ready to plead.
Mr.. Hartwell stated that he was not
prepared to advise his client about
pleading, rs he had come to argue
the motion to quash the search war
rant.
The Judge said the search war;
rant was not yet before the Court.
He was in doubt whether it had any
thing to do with the case. He also
wished the counsel to understand
that the defendants were not on
trial for an offense before the SUI
preme Court, but were before Il
Committing Magistrate.
Mr.. Hartwell urged that the
Court should hear argument on the
motion 10 quash, before the Attor-
ney-General brought in his evidence.
If the Court waited until then the
mischief they were trying to avert
might be done.
MIR. Hatch argued that the mo-
ton to quash the search warrant
was not matter of evidence, either
as to the guilt or innocence of the
accused, but simply to stop process
of the search warrant, that instru-
ment being illegal and unconstitu-
tonal. He submitted that counsel
had legal right to be heard as to
whether or not the Marshal shall
retain the custody of the books
taken under the warrant. Have we
not a right to be heard before the
Acknowledgement sees fit to produce
the books in Court? He cohtended
that his client could not be deprived
of his property without being heard.
The Deputy ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
stated that 1t was premature-all
this talk about the legality of the
warrant. If the warrant is illegal
they have their remedy ut law in an
action for damages.
The Acknowledgement thought it
a rather queer proceeding TO take
away from the crown the evidence
legally obtained, thought it unrea-
sonable for the motion to be sus-
tanned at this time, and asked that
it be dismissed.
The Judge still thought that there
was no motion before him.
Mr.. Hartwell said there was Il
motion before the Court, and the
Court has jurisdiction 10 hear the
argument. If ones books and ac-
counts can be seized in order to
procure evidence against him on a
criminal charge, and his counsel
cannot be heard before the books
have been used, to argue that the
seizure is unlawful, he would never
have the honor to appear in the
Court again, for he should regard
this as kind of tyranny, and did
not believe it to be the law.
The Judge stated that strong Ian
guage was not argument. He
wanted to hear the arguments and
points why the motion should be
sustained.
Mr.. Hatch asked if they had moi
a right to file a motion against any
process. If we are entitled to filC
a motion, we certainly should have
the right to be heard on that motion
| The Judge said, your argumeR