The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-07-20
SUPREME COURT.
JULY TERM.

BEFORE HIS HONOR JUSTICE NJ GULLY
The King VS.. P. A. Dias. for libel.
This trial was had on the 18th inst,
when the following instructions were
given by the Court to the jury:
'Upon the admission of counsel for
the defendant, virtually plea Of guilty,
YOU are instructed to find the defendant |
guilty, and the only question is whether
it shall be in the first or second degree. |
"The law does not define what constr
tutes the first and what the second de-
grees. | will read the penalties pre-
scribed for each degree, viz: 'Imprison-
ment at hard labor not to exceed one
year or fine not to exceed one thousand
dollars, in the first degree; imprison-
ment at hard labor not to exceed three
months, or fine not to exceed three
hundred dollars, in the second degree
and it is in the discretion of the Court in
either case to make it fine or iInprlsOn-
ment. In either case the minimum fine
or imprisonment is not named in the
statute.
"You will determine the degree &C
cording to your view OF the aggravatlon
of the case"
The Jury brought in verdict of guilty
in the second degree; and Mr.. +. NJ.
| Hatch, one of the defendants attorneys,
asked the Court to impose light SEN
tence as there was no acquaintance be-
tween the parties, nor any intention on
the part of defendant to do wrong.
| ho n
the Court, addressed the defendant as
follows:
Mr.. DIAs: You are before the Court
to receive sentence for criminal libel.
| The article which you published in your
newspaper the go Luso Hawaiiano," an
article written by yourself on the basis Of
letter received from correspondent,
| was injurious and defamatOry in high
| degree. 1t would naturally inflict great
pain and excite in the minds of the per-
sons and families referred to an almost
uncomfortable Indignation. | give no
synopsis of the article here because l
wish to give it no further publication
than it has already had.
1t seems to me to be entirely such a
case as justities resort to criminal pro-
secution for vindication of character.
The proofs offered have completely met
the calumniOus statements and refec-
tons of your article. 1t is no legal justi-
fcation to you that the matter was turn
ished by correspondent, and it is but
little moral justification either. The
editor of newspaper cannot excuse him
self for adopting ibellous statements OF
} correspondents. He should not use his
office as a censor of public morals until
he has authenticated the facts on which
he pronOunces his censure. The letter
of the correspondent was almost in
nocuous without your publication of it
The words of a newspaper such as yours
is, circulating through the whole Portu-
guese community of this kingdom, point
ing without misunderstanding to certain
individuals and charging highly disgrace
J full conduct to them, have no light effect
l cannot gauge the sensibility of the per
sons who are affected in this instance
but [ Judge that the attack is calculated
J to inf1ict the deepest mental pain.
But while [ view the offense to bt
as aggravated as any which could bt
: considered as within the second degree
, as the jury has estimated this to be,
shall not impose the highest penalty o
the law for that degree, nor the mos
severe form of that penalty, which would
be imprisonment.
consider that the censure involved il
: the conviction of the offense must be fell
as severe punishment by a gentleman
editing a newspaper, and this censure
moreover, which the Court has with de
) liberation expressed is a punishment
, The fine to be imposed will not be re
ceived by the parties injured. The end
of public justice may be satisfied in thi
| case by a fine of one hundred and fifty
dollars, which is hereby imposed.