The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1899-09-20
SIX MONTHS FOR LIBEL
Concluded from page one)

Attorney Cathcart for the defense
moved dismissal of the charge against
Marshall on the grounds that the arti-
Giles complained of were not libelous,
that they had not been connected by
evidence with the defendant and that
no showing had been made that they
had reference to Chief Justice Judd.
There is no testimony that the de-
PENDANT wrote or published this paper"
said Mr.. Cathcart, except his name at
the head of its column and no PROOF
has been offered that the man written
about is really Chief Justice Judd. It
may have been some other A. f. Judd
The prosecution is under the necessity
of showing beyond reasonable doubt
that the chief justice is the man re-
ferred to-" The lawyer proceeded to
read the alleged libelous articles, SEN
tence by sentence, and to claim for each
that it was not libelous. He put con-
structions on all the statements made
in the Volcano that made it almost APP
pear that the man written about had
been eulogized. The very forcible adj
jectives employed We're defined and
analysed at length by Mr.. Cathcart He
claimed that some of his clients SEN
fences and phrases were absolutely
without any meaning whatever.
Mr.. Weber replied for the prosecution,
citing many authorities and scoring the
defendant and the Volcano in strong
language. He contended that the fact
of Marshalps name appearing at the
head of the paper showed his respon-
sibility for its utterances and called at
| tention to the words "Chief Justice
| Judd" printed in large black letters
above the longest of the alleged libels,
| as proof that its statements referred to
the chief justice. The attorney con-
| tended that the position of these words
showed Chief Justice Judd to have been
/ 10 nf ha pti A- 20, h.,
question of whether the statements were
| libellous, Mr.. Weber, found a dozen or
more different expressions which he
| claimed justified conviction He quot
ed many legal definitions of libel and
SANDER and several times referred IN
| fiery language to the character of the
paper alleged to have been edited by the
| defendant. 1T was the most scurrilous
sheet ever printed in this community"
| said he. Its criticisms are not in the
spirit of sane discussions of public of
! ficers or events. They are personal at
lacks, violent and full of malice, and
are of the sort that hatred and envy
arouse. The statements about the chief
justice of the Republic of Hawaii-the
man holding the highest judicial office
| here-Were not applicable to any act of
his. They were made because he decid-
ed in a case involving some labor con-
tracts that the Constitution of the
J
| Islands. But there is nothing in the
| Volcanoes remarks that has reference
| to this decision. The statements writ
ten by the defendant are simply an at
tack upon the personal character of the
chief Justice" Mr. Weber was going on
to demand conviction and infliction of
the highest penalty" when he was
reminded that he was only arguing a
motion to dismiss.
Attorney Cathcart made a brief reply
renewing his plea for a dismissal and
reiterating his statements that a case
had not been made out, for the reasons
before quoted. He said that the pros
ecuting attorney had added to the quo
tatiOns he made from the Volcano, had
put his own definitions upon words used
and had coined new phrases to show his
construction of the sentences alleged tC
have been written by Editor Marshall
He contended that the mere fact of Mr.
Weber's doing this showed that the
writings We're not clear enough to be
libellous.
In deciding the motion Judge Wilcox
said he had listened with interest to the
ingenious argument offered by Mr.
Cathcart, but that he had not been con.
WINGED by it. He therefore declined tC
dismiss the case and ordered an ad-
jOurnment of court till half past 1.