The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-10-25
SUPREME COURT.
OCTOBER TERM.
THURSDAY, Oct. "a

Honor the Chief Justice on the Bench.
The Clerk called the roll of Hawaiian
jurors. His Honor then called the juror
Bipikane to the bar of the Court and thus
addressed him:
The Court-"It appears that he lost
control of himself yesterday and the At
torney-General suggests that he be fined
or punished for contempt of Court. 1t
was certainly very improper conduct,
you made yourself a partizan, and the
language you used was very improper,
but the Court is never disposed to be
severe with the people that are perhaps
not quite aware of the decorum they
should always preserve. We feel called
upon however to dismiss you from fur
ther attendance in this court as a juror
and your name may be taken from the
jury list"
Mr.. Rosa, counsel for Wilcox pre-
scented motion that his client be adj
mitted to bail. His Honor set the hour
for hearing of argument on the motion
at 9 80 o'clock Friday morning.
Case No. 4, the King VS.. Poai and
eighteen others, charged with mutiny
was now called. The Chief Justice be-
ing stakeholder III the Wilder's Steam
ship Co., Owners of the vessel kinau,
on which the mutiny occurred) regarded
himself disqualified from sitting
on the trial of this case and
he retired. Judge McCully occupying the
I'll Info
eighteen in number were all
arraigned but before plea was taken the
Attorney-General presented certificate
to the Court declining to present an in
dictment against Poai, Jim Grow,
Kehai, Keawe, Palau, Pimkohola, Koho-
lolis, LAMA, Alama, Solomon, Kalama,
Kalua, Looka Keawe, and Joe kaaha-
mui and they were discharged. The
indictment was then read against the
remaining defendants and they pleaded
not guilty. A Hawaiian jury was then
drawn and sworn in by Clerk Henry
Smith. The prosecution was conducted
by Deputy Attorney-General Peterson
and Mr.. Kane appeared for defendants.
By the evidence of Captain Lorenzen,
Purser Beckley and Messrs. Brewster
and Hilbus, the prosecution presented
age of the coasting steamer Kinau from
this port to windward, that the men
charged, viz: Kanamu, Kameka and
Kuhi, with others, became disorderly
before reaching the spar buoy after leav-
ing Honolulu, on account of an assault
committed by the mate on one of their
number, and they attempted to force the
discharge, by the captain, of his first
officer at Lahaina. They continued very
disorderly, and on arrival at Lahaina
their demand not being acceded to they
refused duty, Purser BeckIey being I'M
able for a while to obtain boats to carry
freight and passengers to shore. Sheriff
Evans of Lahaina was notified and the
mutinous sailors were arrested by him
and finally sent to Honolulu for trial.
The defence offered the evidence of
seven witnesses, the gist of which cor
robOrated the charge of the prosecution
in so much that the men had demanded
the captain to discharge the first officer,
and had struck work in consequence of
the retention by the captain of the
offending mate.
Mr.. Kane, for the defense, addressed
the jury at p. m., followed by Deputy
Acknowledgement Peterson at 3 10. At
the close of Mr.. Peterson's remarks
Judge McCully charged the jury as fol-
lows:
Gentlemen: There is a wide and
serious difference in the relations of
hired men on sea and on the land. On
shipboard the captain Is the absolute
master as no employer of labor on shore
is. You see the necessity of it, a ship
cannot be run by committee, and
ship cannot be run by the agreement
and counsel of the sailors and all hands.
The captain is not obliged to ask his men
and to advise with his men as to what
should be done on shipboard, and that is
too plain to need any further remark.
Even passenger on shipboard is under
a different rule from the same man on
shore in relation to travelling anywhere.
Even a passenger interfering with the
working of the ship could, by authority
of the captain, be prevented, if neces-
sary, by locking him up, ironing him, if
need be.
Now, has a sailor no rights because he
is sailor, if he is abused, injured in
any way? Take the case of Poai, and
take the case to be that the mate in
flicted an assault upon him that was
brutal in its character and unnecessary
and not justified by law, or by the usages
of the sea take that case, he would
have right on coming to port to cause
the mate to be prosecuted for assault and
battery, he would have right to bring
civil action against him and recover
damages in money: and, thirdly, he
could bring an action under which his
contract for service would be dissolved fit
were shown that he was maltreated; but
there is no right on the part of his ship
mates to conspire together to secure him
| justice from the captain, while on their
voyage.
Now the whole defense of these defen-
dants is that they did have such right.
| 1t is true they offered testimony to show
| that the assault of the mate upon Poai
was unwarrantable, but that as the At
torney-General has said to you is not
strictly proper to this case. Right or
wrong the crew had no right to make
the demand for "hooponopono," a
settlement. Well now, what was
this settlement that they demand
ed? It was just this; by their
own testimony it was settlement
according to their terms. to discharge
the mate, otherwise they would not dc
duty. Their counsel tells you that they
went to the captain of the ship as the
''makua' or the father and head o
them all, in order to have their wrongs
righted but in truth according to theil
own statements, which you must take
against them, they went to him to make
demand that it should be settled il
their way. They were taking the au