The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-02-09

/ OishPs name in the warrant, aud be
testified that Oishi in the indictment
was the "Ois" in the warrant. This
was objected to on the ground that
| parol testimony cannot vary or ex-
plain a written instrument. The wit
ness testified that the Hawaiian
| rendering of "Oishi" was "Ois.''
We hold that it was competent as a
matter Of Identification to show that
these names represented one and the
same person, and the rule Of evidence
above referred to was not thereby vio-
lated. To q Hawaiian they are idenl
sOndns. A Hawaiian, unless educated
in the English language, would add
vowel sound and "Ois" would be ordi-
narily pronounced "Oisi." As to the
insertion Of the ''h" after the "s," an
ordinary Hawaiian would not distin-
guish between the sound of Ssh"
and 49,"
We do not hold anyone to extreme
strictpess in the paraphrasing or An
glicizing of names foreign to the Eng.
fish tongue, especially when Hawai-
ian undertakes to write q Chinese or
Japanese name, and whose unaccus-
toned ears are not sensitive to the
pronunciation of their names by the
tenahle. See Herring's case, Haw.
Moreover, Oishi plead not guilty to
the Indictment, and it makes no diff
ference whether or not his name was
in the warrant whose execution he
was charged with resisting. The Of
tense may be complete IL he as q mere
bystander resisted the officers while
attempting to execute the warrant
upon others. Having held the warrant
to be good against all the persons
named in the information, 1t is OF no
consequence, If some of them were
there and the attempt was made to ar
rest these, whether some other persons
named in the warrants were not pres
ent at the time Of the attempted ar
rest.
The trial Judge refused to charge at
request of defendant Gaspar, "that
there was no evidence of Gaspar's
having advised or counseled or melted
the defendant japanese to resist the
police officers named in the indict-
ment, in the event OF such officers
of their official duties and while the
officers should be so engaged"
It was proper to refuse this instruc-
ton because the evidence shows that
the orders Gaspar gave to his Japan
csc were broad and made no exception
whether the officers had warrants or
not. He told them that If the Kanaka
policemen came in any OF the coffee
"You beat them with stones and tie
them up with rope to a tree, etc."
transcript p. 81. Evidence also went !
to the jury that after the first dispute |
about the coffee the prosecuting wit |
ness, d. II. Kahaulelio, left them |
saying he was going to get a warrant |
rok To- no. n nA6 rreak
have inferred that the police would |
come later with warrants. PIP. 81, 81 |
and 273. Gaspar having given orders
to assault the police he is responsible
for the probable result of his orders.
The latter part of instruction No.
10 was refused: 1t reads-"And If |
said officers attempted to arrest any
person for whom they had no warrant
and who was not at the time of such
attempt to arrest him in the act of
an offense, then such
officers or any of them without q
were justified in resisting
such arrest" This instruction could
not properly be given. The warrants
were, as held by US, legal, and when
.wo OF those named therein, namely,
Oishi and Matsumoto, resisted and
hose not named in the warrant Joined
n the attack on the officers they were
liable to arrest without warrant for
he new offense. See Caecires' case 8
aaw.
The last part of request No. IL was
'efused: 1t is as follows-''Therefore
f the law will not presume the re-
possibility of Gaspar for the illegal
acts OF others, done in his absence,
and, in order to find him guilty under
his indictment, the jury should be
not only that Gaspar
melted the defendant Japanese
% assault the officers named in the
Indictment, while in the discharge of
heir official duties, and that the Jap
Inese defendants understood from his
language that Gaspar was so melting
hem but also that Gaspar exercised
peculiar power and Influence over
he minds Of the defendant Japanese,
o a degree which deprived the per-
ons so by him melted, of the freedom
4 their wills, and deprived them of
he character of free moral agents:
nd so as to render each of them mere.
= the instrument of Gaspar, in max
1g the assault complained Of"
The law does not require that in
rder to hold a person guilty of incit-
lg another to do q criminal act he
aust have "hypnotized" him so that
is own will is destroyed.
Wharton's Grim. Ev. Sec. 225, and
otes.
There remains an exception to the
erdict. The other points were either l
oandoned or have been discussed and Z
ecided in other portions of this case.
AS to the verdicts. There were two, I
ne In the case Of the Japanese and s
le other In Gaspar's case. Thev l.
ere tried together, and there was no r
ecessity for two verdicts.
One Is as follows: eve the iurv i'm
lie case Of Republic Of Hawaii v. john G
aspar find J. Gaspar guilty of the =
large of accessory before the fact as c
larged." The objection that the .tJU >
elng the initial to Gaspar's Surname q
)eS not Gonna hol0xxy thu G.--S -