The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-08-19
DECISION IN AN IMPORTANT
OPIUM CASE.
Before the District and Police JUS
ticc of Honolulu.

Tong, in honolulu, on ucSuaN, OVn
August, 1890. The charge is made,
and prosecution has been conducted, |
by members of committee appoint
ed by the Legislature to investigate
the traffic in opium.
One thing is certain: that after
O'Clock on that Tuesday afternoon,
Quai Tong left the house of Al;nna
at Palama, to buy opium for Mr..
Nawahi, member of the above
named committee, and returned to
Akana's shortly before 3 O'Clock
with the 80 tins. Everything else
in the case is disputed.
Quai Tong says that at 10 or 10
minutes after half-past two, he went
into defendants store, looking at
the clock rs he went in and was in the
store ten minutes: nobody was in
the store but defendant and the
witness: the witness had never been
in the store before, but had met de-
PENDANT on the street few days
previously, and asked him if he had
opium to sell, when witness went in
the store, defendant brought out the
SO tins of opium, wrapped up in
four packages and placed in rice
bag: witness paid defendant S253.50
and went out the front door to Hotel
street with the bag on his shoulder.
Two Hawaiians testify that on that
afternoon they saw Quai Tong com
ing out Of defendant store with Il
bag on his shoulder; but they vary
as to the time when they saw this
and from their evidence it appears
TO me that whatever they saw could
not have been later than = O'Clock ;
and their Identification of Quai Tong
is far from satisfactory or conclu-
siye.
Null, u police officer, says that
at O'Clock he went into defendants
store to Get match: saw Quai
Tong. before witness went in, talk.
ing to defendant in the front of the
store: when witness entered, Quai
Tong was sitting in the front store
with four other Chinese, and defend
ant was in the inner room: witness
had never seen Quai Tong before or
since.
This is the evidence for the pro-
secutlon: and it is plainly contra
dictory, so much so, that If the
testimony of any one Of the wit
nesses is true, all the other witnesses
must be mistaken.
A number of Chinese witnesses,
for the defense, testify that on that
Tuesday there were at least two
employees in defendants store all
day: and that defendant was not
there at all from 10 a. IN. TO $3.50
p. m. but was across the street at
Hang Lung KEGS during all that
time.
1t seems to me unlikely that in q
store like defendants he would he
left alone to attend to customers
and it also appears to me that the
dl,6i proved by the defense is too
elaborate 10 be false: it would moi
be necessary to have defendant
away from his store so long, unless
it were true.
In rebuttal of the olibi the prose
cution bring q Hawaiian hand-cart
man who says he saw defendant
leave his store soon after l O'Clock
on that Tuesday, cross the street tc
the opposite store, and shortly come
back to his own store: but the wit,
ness says he sees defendant going ir
and out of his store every day, ano
that his attention was not called tC
what he had seen till the following
week.
Evidence is also offered that two
: Chinese merchants, who say they
were talking business with defend
ant at Hang Lung KEGS at the time
when Quai Tong says that defend
ant sold him the opium, made diff.
ferent statement when they were
summoned before the Legislative
committee in the evening, after the
sale: but they were brought before
the committee after defendant ha(
stated that he was with them from
10 to 3 that day, the questions were
put to them in English by Hawaiian
members of the committee, they re.
piled in English, their testimon,
was recorded by Chas. Wilcox, Q
Hawaiian; and Chung Tung, a half.
Chinese, was told in Hawaiian, by
one of the committee, TO repeat tC
them in Chinese the questions al.
ready asked: and the Interpreter
said that the witnesses said that
what they had already testified tc
was true. The evidence is conflict.
ing as to what questions were really
put to these witnesses and what re.
plies they made: and it is evident
that in the use of the different Ian
guages and the inability of each Of
the persons present to understand
the others beyond a certain extent
a very serious doubt arises as Il
whether what the witnesses said o.
intended 10 say was properly con
veyed to the committee: but if Wy
, Nam, before he had much time t.
concoct much of a defense, told TIN
' same story then that he does now
r it seems reasonable TO suppose tina
h the men he relied on to substantial,
s him would not have deIiberatel,
e contradcted him then, and after
c wards told an exactly opposite stor,
, at the trial.
f But even if the evidence of tn,
committee casts suspicion upoI
the defendants olidf, it only add