The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-10-29
SUPREME COURT.
THURSDAY, Oct. Il.
The King vs.. Ho Fon.-Conspiracy'-
Ch.r~e Of Chief Justice Judd.

this case on Monday last unless am
mistaken. 1t Is now Thursday even
ine. 50 during the greater part OF
tbs week We have occupied ourselves
n listening patiently TO the testimony
that has been adduced on behalf of the
Crown and that has been adduced on
behalf OF the defence. ] trust that you
remember that testimony, although
x-au may be somewhat weary as IN
douhteilv YOU are. Judging by myself
I must believe that YOU are weary with
having STAYED here so long; still the par
-lcuiarS. the essentials OF the case are no
doubt fresh in your minds. 1t is mat
1er Of great congratulation to US all that
1his : the first case, so lar as am aware,
and have had an intimate knowledge
OF the conduct OF judicial proceedings in
tins cJuntrv Tor the last fifteen or twenty
wears OF over, that q Chinaman has in
terested himself in the, TO use mild
expression. ''polihcs' OF this country,
sufficiently 10 be engaged In any way IN
& political movement. Heretofore We
have not regarded them as an essential
element in our politics, they have not
had the vote 70 any extent and they
have contented themselves In plying
their several vacations and they have
busted themselves in the making OF
money
This Young man SAYS, il you believe
him. and undoubtedly you will in this
-especf. that ne is but twenty four years
CT age. and that ne has spent twelve
wears OF that time, hall OF his lie, IN this
country You have heard the testi-
mony that ne understands the Hawaii
Al Language. and that he understands the
English language, andthat he admits the
testmonyoi Mr.. Boyd that he was
schoolmate OF his at the Fort street
school. That may perhaps account for
his association with the natives and
half whites IN those several meetings
about which you nave heard so much
during tins week
he i not charged with treason, gen
Lemen OF the Jury, but he Is charged
with being one OF the several conspira-
cUrs who combined together to commit
treason. Ii Is necessary perhaps that l
should explain in general terms what
Conspiracy Is. and can Go so no better
than 10 read you from the statute. Our
statute law defines Is follows:
a conspiracy Is q malicious or fraud
uleut combination or mutual undertake
inE OF concerning together OF two or more
10 commit any offence" and that Is as
la - / need read as far as this case is
concerned. In other words, TO put 1t
more concisely, conspiracy is a cOmbina-
ton, an agreement TO break the law; that
Is 10 commit = felony. Now this in
dicimenI, charges the defendant with a
conspiracy with Mr.. Wilcox and others
- levy war against the government,
which i one OF the treaSons that may
be committed IN this country, and the
levyilg OF war by statute, IS this: sit
shall Be requisite that the persons con-
cenei therein be parties TO some overt
act, N or towards procuring, preparing
OF using force, or putting themselves in
3 condition N readiness to use force,
either by being present at such overt |
Sct, o: by promoting, aiding in, or be-
M otherwise accessory before the fact
70 the same.
In order 10 constitute the levying of
TSr, the force must be employed or in
tended 10 be employed for the dethroning
OF destruction OF the King or in contrary |
ention OF the laws, or in opposition to |
The authority OF the Kings Government, |
Tith al intent or for an object affecting |
some OF the branches or departments of |
said government generally, or affecting |
the enactment, repeal or enforcement of |
laws IN general, or Of some general law"
and 50 forth.
! presume that the difficulty that you |
VII have in this case, if YOU have any, |
VII be not so much in understanding |
what the exact offence is that is charged |
against this man, but as to what degree |
OF testimony would be sufficient to con-
vet him on II. Now gentlemen, it is not |
necessary in order that you convict him |
that he had signed an agreement with |
Mr. Wilcox witnessed by an individual |
and acknowledged before a notary pub
JIG that he had engaged with him to |
ASSIST him IN reinstating the old constitu- |
Ton by force, or that he would assist |
him IN any act oflevying war. 1t would |
be absurd 10 require that, the law does |
not require such an impossibility that |
the government should prove such a |
state OF things, and read you from one
Of the well considered authorities, Whar-
tons Criminal Law, Sec. 1898: ''that |
the actual fact OF conspiring may be in
ierred from the circumstances, and /
the cOncurring conduct of the de-
PENDANTS need not be directly proved.
Any joint action on material point or
cOllOcation Of independent and co-opera-
tive acts by persons closely associated
with each other, is held to be sufficient
TO enable the jury TO infer concurrence
IN sentiment, and one competent witness
VIII suffice 20 prove the cooperation of
any individual conspirator." You must
be satisfied that there was plot or con-
splracy agreed to be formed, an under
taking, combination to commit treason;
and secondly, that the defendant was
one o. them, was a conspirator.
say II is not necessary that he should
have declared openly and that it
should be proved by a number of wit
nesses these words: 81 hereby combine
and confederate with r. w. Wilcox to
levy war against the Hawaiian Govern
ment-" Shghter proof than that would
convict him OF the offense, conspiracy to
commit treason.
Now / shall not weary you with a
long repetition of the testimony; YOU
have heard the addresses of both counsel
In which the material facts have been
reviewed, and the coloring given to
them, the inference and arguments
drawn from them which will suit the re-
spective sides which they advocate.
II you should find from the testimony
that Ho Fon, the defendant, was present
at meetings where treason was contem-
plated, was planned, and that he was
aware OF the intention of the parties,
and that he participated in the meetings