The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-12-19
COOKS CASE.
JUSTICE BICKERTON RULES
IN HIS FAVOR.
The Court Decides That the
AMdavifs and Warrant Are
Not admissible.

In the case of Joseph B. Cook,
the defaulting police court clerk,
who is wanted in San Francisco on
a charge of embezzlement, Justice
Bickerton gave his ruling on Sat-
urday on the affidavits and war
rant from the authorities at San
Francisco, and has decided that
they are not admissible as evil
dence.
The following is a copy of the
Judges ruling
am of the opinion and so rule that
these copies of the affidavits and war
rant contained in this file are not admis-
| sible as evidence of the criminality OF
| this man, neither would the originals Gf
they were here) be so. The evidence
must be such as would justify the COM
mitment for trial of the person accused
as if the alleged offense had been
committed in this country. A per-
son being for time within our
jurisdiction is entitled to all the
rights guaranteed to any other person
within our jurisdiction as regards per-
sonal liberty and OF trial upon evidence
OF witnesses produced face to face. Ger
tainly these affidavits could not be used
in evidence against this man as to his
criminality if he were on trial in San
Francisco.
lam now sitting, might say, as a
committing magistrate. This is not a
| 81 oocn 10 bo MoHor+bx ooca W.
ported in 9Th Haw. 573. In that case an
indictment had been found by Grand
Jury, and the court there says, iron,
which we must assume that sufficient
evidence was adduced to warrant the
placing of the petitioner on trial"
It would seem from the record and file
sent here from San Francisco and now in
I,court, that the authorities there have
been guided by the Act of Congress I'M
: der which American Interstate Extra
fdition is carried on, where the different
: States are obliged 10 surrender alleged
, fugitives from justice OF other State:
upon its being shown that an affidavit o
guilt has been made against the alleged
fugitive in such home State. There il
no such provision in our statute Section
449 Compiled Lawsl for proof of criminal
ity. A perusal of the case of McCarth,
lin 5th Haw. by the authorities at Sar
Francisco, would have at once shown
) them that the sending here of these doc
] uments alone would not be sufficient t.
secure the detention of this person.
The Attorney-General may offer an.
other evidence he may have.
! The only question is, can this file @
= papers be olfered in evidence in thi
matter?
of In q -
bears not only the seal of the court, bu
: also the signature of the judge thereof
i and am of opinion and so rule that thi
i file of papers is admissible in evidenc
y for the purpose of showing that the MAJ
now in court is charged with the com
mission OF crime in foreign country
. 1t having been shown to the satisfaction
. of the Court by his own voluntary &C
U mission that he is the person named il
t these papers, hold that Section So of tn
O Law of Evidence Compiled Laws, page
q $40 and 371l applies to and covers thi
case The question as to whether an
;, or all of these papers can be introduce
= !. in evidence as to the criminality of thi
Z man, l will rule upon when they al
d offered in evidence.
70 The ACKNOWLEDGEMENT may present tn
70 evidence.
3 After the ruling was read by tn
% Court, Attorney-General Brown ar
nounced that he had no additions
o evidence to offer, and moved tina
II the case be discontinued on accour
a. of the departure of the accuse
le man. Cooks case is disposed {
as far as Hawaiian courts are cor
he cerned.
a If you don't take the ADVERTISE
lg you don't get the news.