The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-08-03


when he left this somaa's hose hS net
boy and the boz enqsirsd where be
lad been and the doctor said he hal
zen 10 ses Kaiiikea aho1E buying her
land. and the boy said. Yes. she is nv
sso;her. She is ton smart and knows
shat she Is doing Had that testimony
een objected 10 the court would have
trfcken Il out There is no evidence
hat the boy vas kzIlikea.s child No
violence except his representation 10
Howard
Doctor EmeTs0n'E testimony Is that
- xent 70 see the woTBsn; that he had
one Conversation with her. and Teas,l-
d the conclusion that she was capable
Z managing her own affairs He MAZE
10 physical examination 81 the No
nan although be admitted,
did the other doct0rs. that such "A
EXAMINATION AS ESSENTIAL in insanity
ases and cases OK idioey; that such an
Examination should be made His ex-
use for not having done 50, while ae-
eptable 70 the court does not add
anything to the prob2tiye force Of his
estimoay The excuse Is that he dia
rot have the opportunity under the
circumstances. being a mere visitor at
his womaR's house. 10 make physi-
al examination. The Circumstances
gere such as not TO permit Of his max
ne an examination such As would on
bic him to arrive at conclusion On
Which he himself would be wiling to
8Iace absolute confidence. lie maze
ONE inquiries as 10 her anlersderts.
JFt the information on this point was
furnished him b. the defendant ka-
ale who Is and vas then Interested
n establishing the sanity OF complain
ant
The court in this case IS not bound,
Tor would a jury be bound. by the mere
number Of witnesses who testify. \
reat deal OF negative testimony has
been introdsced here. friends and
ueiehbazs who say they neve~saw
Eailikea do what two OF the witnesses
as she did do II is ike the lrishman.
who. when charged with crime AMI
was asked: Can you get any wit
nesses2
Yes. said he, I can get a thousand
who did not see me do it,
THAT seems to be the theory on
which the defense. in a measure mas
| lasad lie case These Wit
7esses seem to be fair. Prima facle
they seem to be fair witnesses, of an
equal degree of intelligence with the
witnesses for complainant but this
testimony is almost wholly negative.
4 discard the testimony Of the eX-
perts entirely. | regard il as absolutely
worthless. and think the testimony of
these experts justify the severe STRIFE
ture which courts have from time To
time made on expert testimony. What
Wacauley said of statistics is applicable
to some extent TO experts: They are
kind mercenaries employed by either
side to establish facts for which either
side contends
The court then reviews the act of the
Grandmother of the complainant in
early life, and continues:
THAT fact alone would not justify
the court in finding this complainant to
he an idiot The fact of compliments
rather being a paralytic standing alone
| would not justify the court in finding
| her an idiot. The fact that complain
ant in early life practiced the disgust
| my acts which characterized her grand
| mother. and that she rarely spoke, and
| xhen spoken to did not answer intelii-
| Gently. or that when spoken TO she
would run and jump into the water.
! Any of those facts alone would no.
Justify the court in finding her non
eompos mentis.
"The fact that she had four chill
iren. at least two of whom are i'm
becilic children would not justify the
court in finding her TO be person of
unsound mind. The fact that she sold
4 piece of property admitted to be
worth $500 and bringing a rental OF
$50 per year. for 500. would not jus
tify this court in finding that she was
a person of unsound mind. But. take
all of these facts. take these threads
and twist them into rope. and this
court is forced to the eonelusien, 4
| conclusion that cannot be avoided
when coupled with the physical evil
| dence before the court that complain
ant is a person of unsound mind and
| that this transaction was vicious one.
A court of equity is court of con-
| science. II places its strong hands on
| those who perpetrate fraud on those
| 100 weak TO protect themselves. The
strong need no protection. lntelli-
gence, wealth, vigor. social position.
may afford immunity from outrage,
craft. cunning or fraud. but the weak
and the helpless find their protection in
the courts, and in that refuge which
the law has afforded them.
The testimony shows that this wo-
man Snd the answer admits the prop
erty is worth 5000 sold the property
in question for. sl0o There is abso-
lutely no testimony other than the
testimony of the defendant Hapa that
even this small sum was actually paid.
The defendant In this case, Hapa
seemingly without any embarrassment
Or sense OF shame. confessed that ne
had been convicted number OF times
in the police courts of this country.
once for theft, for which he received
three months sentence. This is anoeh-
sr strong fact. Not controlling one.
but considered in connection with the
other facts. Ii is more or less import
ant AT common law the court re-
luired no expert testimony as TO
whether or not in given ease a par
son was an idiot. The question was
tried largely by inspection. Bring r
aerSon into this courtroom who he's
but one eye. and that in the middle OF
the forehead. Every physician in Ho-
nosulu might come into court and
swear such a person not monstros-
lily and Ike the ordinary Individual.
yet the court would nor have its eoa-
science trammeled and controlled hy
any such opinions A man comes into
his court without a nose. Where that
organ should be located the face IS
perfectly smooth He breaths through