The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-05-21

ginning of the term, twenty-nine new
cases have come on the calendar My
assistant, Mr. Cathcart, and l have spent
Sundays and most evenings for the pas
three weeks in the investigation of these
cases and the examination of witnesses
l do not feel called upon to comment
on the improperly of public magistrat,
consuming a higher court and the At
tCrney Generals Department from his
, bench. The charge that the power a
nolle pressing has been abused is with
out foundation in the opinion of Judge
Stanley, the presiding Judge; OF Marsha
Brown and of Deputy Marshal Chilling
worth. In proportion to the number o
I cases on the calendar, the number lOllt
pressed has not been larger than usual
which, however. is not in point, as thu
propriety of nolle pressing any partic
uar case must depend upon it's merits
or want of them, and all surrounding
circumstances. The power to nolle pros
vested by law in the prosecuting officer
is the most responsible of his functions
to be exercised conscientiously for the
public good and the promotion of justice
according to the best judgment he has
In nolle pressing cases it has Away:
sons for doing so in open court. Aftel
what has been written it is simple JUS
tice to the Attorney Generals Depart
ment that my reasons for nolle pressing
the list of cases you have published
should be stated in your paper.
First. Republic of Hawaii VS.. Iiallele
charged with stealing a bicycle. The de
PENDANT offered no defense before Judge
Wilcox and was convicted solely on the
testimony of a man who is now serving
a term of one year on the reef for lar
ceny, and who, upon such investigation
as the police authorities, Mr.. Cathcarl
and 1 were able to make, in our opinion
probably stole the bicycle himself. Sec
ond. Republic of Hawaii VS. Kaluna; Ka-
luna was sentenced to Imprisonment al
hard labor for the term of fifteen years
burglary the store of w w
Dimond e. Co. in view of this long term
| nolle pressed the case against him for
the Kerr burglary Third, Republic of Ha-
wall VS.. Xii; the defendant was commit
ted by the district magistrate of Waia-
nae for instigating another to commit an
offense. without specifying what the Of
Tense was; the charge was not sufficient
to support an indictment; | therefore de
clined to present an indictment, at the
same time having an officer present to
arrest him on a sufficient charge; he was
arrested as he left the courtroom and
his trial is now pending. Fourth, Repub-
lie of Hawaii VS.. John Antoine; the de-
PENDANT was charged with forgery; there
direct evidence of forgery in his
handwriting; there was strong evidence
of passing a forged paper knowing il to
be forged, which is an offense of the
same grade forgery itself; / declined
to present an Indictment for forgery and
had an officer ready to arrest the defend
ant for passing forged paper; he was SO
arrested as he left the courtroom, and
his trial is pending. Fifth, Republic OF
Hawaii VS.. George Cayanaugh; this is
the last of three prosecutions for per-
jury growing out of a prosecution of
George Houghtailing for liquor selling;
the other two cases We're tried at the
February term, resulting in acquittalS;
the Cavanaugh case was much weaker
than either of the others, and upon the
evidence in my judgment, he could not
and ought not to be convicted. Sixth,
Republic of Hawaii VS.. All Sam; this
was an appeal from the District Court
of Eva, not from the District Court of
Honolulu, as you state, following a mis-
take made in making up the calendar;
was found on the highway with a piece
Of opium about as large as pea in his
possession; ii was an old case and by no
means a strong one; Deputy Sheriff Fan
euf was one of the witnesses; the case
could not be tried a the November term
ing of Mr.. Faneuf which subsequently re-
suited in his death; it could not be
tried at the last February term on ac-
count of the quarantine; it was not only
a trivial case, but it's original weakness
and the death of Mr.. Faneuf and the
lapse of time would have made a trial
in my judgment, a waste of public money
and an imposition on jurymen who have
important business of their own. Seventh
Republic of Hawaii VS.. Leo Duval and
Bertha Nathan; in your issue of today
you state that they We're charged with
take; they We're charged with being pros
tituteS; they were registered as such
prior to the great fire; after that they
changed their place of residence: | in
quired carefully in the case and could
obtain no evidence relating to any time
WITHIN many weeks of the Offense Charg-
ed, except that several soldiers had call
cd at their place of residence withou