The Hawaiian gazette., 1896-05-26

prise. and were then shown the marks
But neither offered any explanation as
to how the money came there, who
brought it, or for what purpose, both
expressing complete ignorance, though
not claiming the money as their own
when it was taken away by the sheriff.
On Wednesday, after the case of the
magistrate on the charge of receiving
bribe had been called before the Cir
cult Judge and continued, it was said
in behalf of Mr.. Helekunihi and his
wife that the money had been brought
to their house by Lum PAX the evening
in question as purchase money of a lot
of dried fish that had come to Mrs.
Halekunihi for sale, and which she had
been retailing for some days past; and
this is the defense they offered be-
fore us.
1t is beyond all doubt true that twen-
ty-four dollars were that evening de-
livered by the witness Lum PAX to Mr.
and Mrs. Helekunihi. The purpose for
which 1t was taken by them is not so
well proved. The corroboration of Of
ficer Lindsay is only to the fact of the
payment, but not of its object, as he
heard nothing of the conversation. We
should hesitate before condemning
man of such good standing as Mr.. Hele-
kunihi on the evidence of Chinese
witness who was apparently acting as
an informer and had a strong motive to
ensnare the magistrate and win favor
with the police. If it were true that he
delivered the money to the magistrates
wife to pay for fish he had engaged, it
was an innocent transaction, and there
is no reason conceivable why both Mr.
and Mrs. Helekunihi should not have
Immediately told the sheriff that Chi
naman had been there that evening
and had given them twenty-four dol
lars for fish, and show the money, and
thus avoid an unpleasant search for it,
If the story were true, there was every
motive on respondents part to relate it
TO the sheriff or to the Circuit Judge
who gave them every opportunity to
do so before they were informed that
processes had been taken out against
him. Their silence when they were
called upon to speak is inconsistent, in
our opinion, with their innocence.
But they went further than merely
keeping silence Mr.. Helekunihi de-
MED that the Chinaman came the even
ing before and that the money in Ques-
tion had been received. And yet he
admits that the Chinaman came to him
Sunday evening and offered him the
bribe, and Mrs. Helekunihi testified
that she told her husband about the
transaction the previous evening, and
Officer Lindsay testified that Mr.. Hele-
kunihi was present when the China
man paid the money.
We refrain from commenting at
length upon some parts of the testi-
mony of Mr. and Mrs. Relelcunihi /
which would make us doubt their sin /
cerity, but many unessential details \
were woven into their narratives with |
the apparent intention of influencing /
the Court in their favor We are not |
with the argument of coun
sci that the respondent was on such
-erms of hostility with the sheriff that
ne did not feel called upon to make any
explanation, but assumed the attitude
If one accused, reserving his defense
they, however, did not decline to talk
1t all with the sheriff, but said repeat
idly, I'VE know nothing about this
hing"
1t is painful duty to have to pass in
upon the respondent, a
lan who has held many Offices for long
cries of years and has had the conf
ence Of several successive administra-
ions, but men of good intentions but
not very strong wills sometimes yield
} temptations when they feel confident
hat detection will not follow. We have
n abiding conviction that the respond
Mt is one of this class, and that his Of
ense is proven, and accordingly ad-
ldge and order that he be dismissed
ON the office of District Magistrate of
Tailuku.
Attorney General Smith for prosecu-
on. w. A Kinney for respondent.
Honolulu, May IA, 1896.
For every quarter in a mans pocket