The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-07-05
SUPREME COURT.
JULY TERM.
WEDNESDAY, July 8.

attendance of the public was large at the
beginning of the sitting.
Mr.. A. S. Hartwell appeared for &. w.
Ashford who was charged with contempt
OF Court. Counsel then read the res
pondent's answer to the rule of Court as
follows:
'"rhat he did not in fact, as alleged in
the order, on the first day of July or at
any other time, state to the Court that
he would not proceed with the prosecu-
lions because the Court had declined to
consent summarily to the entry OF
nolle prosequi in the case of the King VS..
J. r. Robertson, but said that it would
take the matter under advisement. And
respondent denies that he stated, at all,
to said Court that he would not proceed
with prosecutions, and further states the
truth to be that after the Court declined
to consent to the entry OF said nolle
prosequi, this respondent, as such At
torney General did attend to the further
session of such Court, and did by him.
self and by his deputy, A. L. Peterson
then and there present, proceed with the
calling of the calendar and the arrange
ment and continuance OF Grown cases
and the calling of defendants therein,
and the receiving of pleas to indictments,
to wit, in the case of the King VS.. Frank
Davis. And this respondent says that
what he did say upon the occasion
named, as nearly as he remembers and
believes, was that If he could not con-
troll the prosecution in his own depart
ment he should not conduct any prose-
cutions;' but he denies that he said any
thing that was intended to be or was
contempt of Court, or to impair or des-
troy it's authority, or the respect due
thereto.
And to so much of said rule and order
as recites that said respondents said
deputy did later on said day appear be-
fore said Court and stated that he had
been instructed by the respondent not to
proceed with any more criminal busl-
ness and did decline to proceed accord
ingly, this respondent demurs and SUBJ
mits that the same contains no allega-
ton Of any act or OF any refusal to act by
| or on the part OF this respondent.
And that this honorable Court has not
and should not take Jurisdiction thereof;
| the same, even if unexplained, being a
| matter solely OF constructive contempt.
And this respondent further says that
he has interposed and now interposes no
| delay to the usual and orderly procedure
| of the cases before this Court, and that
| whatever expressions he used on the
| occasion of the said nolle prosequi were
meant to show merely his sense of his
official right and duty to enter a nolle
prosequi upon his own official RESPONSE
bility and not to show any contempt OF
Court.
(Signed) G. w. ASHFORD,
Attorney General.
Honolulu, July 8, 1885,"
| Counsel then stated that the Attorney
General had taken the course in accord
ance with what he consid cred his rights
| of office, but that no disrespect to the
Court was intended. He stated further
that in times of excitement it is difficult
to remember the exact language used
and words were sometimes uttered that
should not be taken seriously. Counsel
then concluded by asking that the Rule
of Court be discharged.
The learned Justice then referred tC
the circumstances stated in the Rule
putting most stress upon the alleged re-
| mark of Ashford that "if he could not
control prosecutions in his own depart
ment he would not conduct any prosecu-
tons in Court" Justice McCully further
remarked that it appeared to him in.
credible that public officer should not
proceed with his duties in open Court
This conduct, he thought, was overriding
the Court; and the business was brought
to standstill in consequence. He could
not do otherwise than find the respon-
dent guilty of contempt of Court.
Mr.. Hartwell then asked for continu-
ance in order to submit affidavits from
parties who were present upon the occa.
sion and were prepared to state what
language was at that time used.
The learned Justice said that he must
proceed. 1t is a matter between the
Court and the respondent; and no aft
davits are needed, as the Court can pro-
coed upon it's own knowledge. The
Court is so clear upon the matter that it
is due to it's dignity to proceed.
A sentence of twenty-four hours i'm.
prisonment was then passed upon the
respondent, to commence at p. m. that
day; and the Court would be prepared
to hear any apology or statement by the
respondent between 80 p. m. and the
hour above named.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Court resumed at 80 p. m. The
cause of the King VS.. Marcus Colburn
was called, and a good deal of the evil
dence in this cause was taken before the
Attorney-General appeared to make his
expected apology or statement.
At l 80 the Attorney-General advanced
to the bar of the Court and read his
statement as follows
ION the morning of July LIST, claimed
that had the right to nolle pros. case
then before the Court. This claim !
still maintain to be right, and good law
claim that l have the legal right to
nolle pros. any criminal cases which
comes before the Court. I hereby state
that do not therefore consider that any
refusal to present any case is contempt
OF Court, but [ do further state that ]
consider that my refusal to proceed
with any further prosecutions was
not conformable to the best interests
OF the community, although within
my legal right, and have therefore pro-
ceeded with them. Being convinced
that have the legal right to do as l did i.
and having already stated that 1 in
tended no disrespect to the Court, can
not admit that contempt was commit.
ted, and am therefore unable to apologize
| Tor contempt u hich I do not admit no G