The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-04-01

the proper officer 10 issue the warrant,
and, having issued it in this instance
in his official capacity, ii must be pre-
sumed that he did 50 with proper au-
thority; in other words, that he acted
legally rather than illegally. No
order from the COuncilsto their Chair
man need appear in the warrant.
Case Of the Sheriff Of Hid6ieSeT, il
AT. aud FL, 273. indeed, it is not
customary to set forth any such order.
II il usual in warrants of commitment
to recite copy or the substance of the
resolution IT sentence passed by the
assembly, but this contains no order
to the presiding officer. He takes no.
tice Of the resolution and issues the
warrant OF commitment himself. Less
formallty Is required in a warrant OF
arrest than IN warrant of commit
ment. But 10 put the matter beyond
question, ii IA expressly stated in the
return that the warrant was issued
by the order of said Councils The
truth OF this statement ia not denied.
The return imports verify until
1t is impeached. It was unneces-
sary TO set forth in the return
copy of the resolution or order
Of the Councils. Church Hab. Corp.
sec. IA. The warrant having been
issued by the proper officer, it is COM
petent 10 show dIiLnde that he had
the requisite authority. If on the
other hand the warrant purpoTted to
have been issued by the direct order
OF the Councils, it would be compe-
tent to show that such was not the
case in fact. See In re RhOdus, 9Th
Haw. 343 y
IN People VS.. Nevins, l Hill I54, it
was held that a "-:...c of Court of
record that a defendant be committed
for contempt, need not recite the prior
proceedings; if it is such rule as the
/ Court might legally make under any
suppOsable state of circumstances, all
jurisdictional steps and matters of
regularity are TO be presumed" A re-
turn of this character must be con-
strued literally. People VS.. Nevins,
supra l59. Rex vs.. Bethel, Mod.
10. Stockdale vs. Hansard, 8 AID. Il
FL. /.
Does the warrant sufficiently Speci-
| fy the grounds of arrest? Again in
answer we adopt the decision appealed
/ from:
SIT commands the Marshal to arrest
/ ]. G. NJ. Sheldon aud have him before
| the Executive and Advisory Councils
| TO show cause why he should not be
/ punished for contempt of the said
/ Councils A statement of the Offense
| in general terms is sufficient. This is
/ sufficient to show that the warrant
was issued in matter of which the
/ Councils had jurisdiction, and is Suffi-
| cient for the purpose of holding the
party until more specific charges can
! be preferred against him. A warrant
of commitment Should only state the
/ fact of the Offense, in general terms,
/ in order to show that the assembly
| has Jurisdiction of it without setting
forth the particular facts, which are
/ supposed by the assembly TO cOnsti-
| tute the Offense.' Cushing, Law IL
! Prac. Leg. Ass. sec. $40. GOSsett as.
ROWdrd, 10 AID. & FL. @. B. All;
Case Of the Sheriff Of MiddteSeT,
supra. Certainly no more should be
required in warrant of arrest issued
for the purpose of bringing the alleged
offender before the bar of the assem-
bly,. Indeed, it would seem to- be the
practice not to inform the offender OF
the charges against him until he APP
pears before the assembly. Cushing,
sec. 667. Proceedings on contempt are
of summary nature. GOSset as.
ROUard, supra, goes so far as to hold
that the House of Commons may or
der a person to be brought before them
cOmpuisOrily, without apprising him
of the reason even in general terms
1t appearing that J.. G. NJ. Sheldon,
on whose behalf the petition is made,
is held under valid warrant of arrest
issued by competent authority, he is
hereby remanded to the custody of the
Marshal
G. w. Ashford for petitioner; F. NJ
Hatch of counsel for respondent.
Honolulu, March 3lst, 1898.