The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-07-09


BY the Court:
Signed HENRY Smith,
Clerk Supreme Court. >"
The above rule OF Court Is still in
force, and Is now returnable on Wedues-
day morning AZ 10 O'Clock.
july TERM.
WEDNESDAY, July 5.
BEFORE HIS HONOR JUSTICE N'CULLY.
The Court opened at 10 8. m. The
attendance Of the public was large at the
beginning OF the sitting.
Mr. 4. 5 Hartveu appeared for c. W.
Ashford who was charged with contempt
Of Court. Counsel then read the res
pondent-s answer TO the rule Of Court rs
follows:
That be did not in fact, as alleged in
the order, on the first day Of July or at
any other time, state 10 the Court that
he would not proceed with the prosecu-
tio2s because the Court had declined to
consent summariIy 10 the entry OF q
nolle prosequi in the case Of the King vs..
J. r. Robertson, but said that it would
take the matter under Amusement. And
respondent denies that he stated. At all.
10 said Court that ne would not proceed
with prosecutions. and further states the
truth 10 be that after the Court declined
10 consent TO the entry Of said nolle
p-1Ssgui. this respondent. rs such At
t1rney General did attend 10 the further
session Of such Court, and did by him
self and by his deputy, \. P. Peterson
then and there present, proceed with the
calling Of the calendar and the arrange
meur and continuance OF Crown cases
and the calling of defendants therein,
and the receiving OF pleas 70 indictments,
30 WY, IN the case Of the King V. Frank
Davis. And this respondent says that
what he did say upon the occasion
named. Is nearly Is he remembers and
believes, was that ii he could not con
-rC. the prosecution in mis- own depart
meut be should not conduct any prose
clr-1nS;' but he denies that he said any
thing that was intended 70 be or was
contempt Of Court. or 10 impair or deS-
troy its authority, or the respect due
thereto.
And 10 50 much Of said rule and order
Is ragi-es that said respondents said
deputy did later on said day appear be
fore said Court aud stated that he had
been instructed by the respondent not TO
proceed with any more criminal bust
ness and did decline TO proceed accord
iuE.v, this respondent demurS and sub
mic> that the same contains no allega-
tiUn OF any act OF Of any refusal 70 act by
OF 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 :
matter solely VI constructive contempt. |
And this respondent further says that
he has intsrposed and now interpOSes no !
DELAY 70 the usual and orderly procedure |
OF the cases before this Court, and that
whatever expressions he used on the
Of the said nolle pr0sequi were
meant 70 show merely his sense OF his |
official right and duty 70 enter d nolle
pr0segui upon his own official response
bi.ity and not 10 show any contempt Of |
Court
signed. c. W. ASHFORD,
Attorney General. |
Honolulu, July 3, 1889"
Counsel then stated that the Attorney |
General had taken the course in accord
ance with what he considered his rights
u rElce, but that no disrespect to the (
Court was intended. He stated further
that In times Of excitement It Is difficult /
70 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 to |
the circumstances stated IN the Rule, |
putting most stress upon the alleged re- |
marx Of Ashford that IF he could not
control prosecutions in his own depart |
melc he would not conduct any prOsecu- !
tons in Court Justice McCully further |
remarked that It appeared to him in |
credible that 3 public officer should not |
proceed with his duties in open Court. |
This conduct, he Thought, was overriding
the Court; and the business was brought |
70 9 scandstlll in consequence. He could |
not do otherwise than find the respon-
dent guilty OF contempt OF Court.
Mr. Hartwell then asked for q cOntinu
luce in order 10 submit afidayits IRON |
parties who were present upon the occa-
sion and we're prepared 70 state what
language was at that time used.
The learned Justice said that he must 4
proceed. Il IS q matter between the [
Court and the respondent; and no ath- /
iavits are needed, IS the Court can pro- /
saed upon its own knowledge. The [
Court i 50 clear upon the matter that 1t
: due 70 lis dignity 10 proceed
\ sentence OF twenty-fOur hours i'm
lriS0nment was then passed upon the
-espoldent, TO commence at , p. N. that
iay and the Court would be prepared
% hear any apology or statement by the
-asp5ndent between 30 p. II. and the
I1ur above named.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Court resumed at l 80 p. m. The
auss % the King -. Marcus Colburn
vas called and q good deal OF the EVIL
fence IN this cause was taken before the
ittorney-Tsneral appeared 70 make his
expected apology or statement.
ArI.5l the Attgrney-GeReral advanced (
% the bar Of the Court and read his
statement as follows:
-'Oa the morning OF July lst, l claimed
hat I had the right TO uO.le pros. a case
hen before the Court. This claim
I'LL maintain 70 be right, and good law.
/ calm that | have the legal right TO