The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1893-04-04

from:
at is clear that he could not legally
issue it without such authority. The
| warrant is entitled Provisional Gov
eminent of the Hawaiian Islands,
which, by the terms of the Proclama
ton, consists of the Executive and Adj
visory Councils. It commands the
Marshal to produce ]. G. NJ. Sheldon
before the Executive and Advisory
| Councils of the Provisional Govern
ment of the Hawaiian Islands at the
| Council Chamber 1t states the
| ground of arrest to be contempt of
the said Councils 1t is signed by
Sanford B. Dole, President and
| Chairman of the Executive and Adj
visory Councils of the Provisional
Government of the Hawaiian ISL
ands.' These expressions show at
least prinld fdcie that the warrant
was issued by President Dole in his
official capacity as chairman of said
Councils, and that the title attached
to his signature is not merely matter
of description. He was, according to
the practice of legislative assemblies,
the proper officer to issue the warrant,
and, having issued it in this instance
in his official capacity, it must be pre-
sumed that be did so with proper au-
| thority; in other words, that he acted
legally rather than Illegally. No
order from the Councils to their Chair
man need appear in the warrant.
Case Of the Sheriff Of MiddEeSeT, IL
AID. and FL, 273. Indeed, it is not
customary to set forth any such order.
1t is usual in warrants of commitment
to recite copy or the substance of the
resolution of 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
fOrmality is required in warrant of
arrest than in q warrant of commit
| ment. But 10 put the matter beyond
question, it is expressly stated in the
return that the warrant was issued
'by the order of said Councils The
truth of this statement is not denied.
The return imports verify until
sary to set forth in the return
of the Councils. Church Hab. Corp.
issued by the proper officer, it is COM
the requisite authority. If on the
other hand the warrant purported 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. 349."
In People VS.. Nevins, l Hill 154, it
was held that a "rule of Court of
record that defendant be committed
for contempt, need not recite the prior
proceedings; if it is such rule as the
Court might legally NIKE 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 159. Rex VS.. Bethel, Mod.
10. Stockdale VS.. Hansard, 9 AID. &
Ell. l.
Does the warrant sufficiently speci-
fy the grounds of arrest? Again in
answer we adopt the decision appealed
from:
at commands the Marshal to arrest
]. G. NJ. Sheldon and 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 q 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 6; |
Prac. Leg. Ass. sec. $40. Gossett as.
HOWGrd, 10 Ad. & Ell. @. B. All;
Case Of the Sheriff Of MiddLeser, |
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 Us.
HOWGrd, supra, goes so far as to hold
that the House of Commons may or
der a person to be brought before them
compulsOrily, 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.
e. w. Ashford for petitioner; f. NJ.
Hatch of counsel for respondent.
Honolulu, March 31st, 1898.
Consul General Fueii Talks.