The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-07-27

an investigation of the matter yester-
Jay, the proper procedure would be the
arrest OF the three men, as soon as
tney left the courthouse. : This could
De done upon the old charges of muir
DER and manslaughter, and they would
De taken before the District Court and
committed to Jail upon the presenta-
tlon OF sufficient evidence The Grand
Jury which meets next month, would
.hen consider their cases, and the au-
'n ..,r, proceed as in an original case.
Inc only question that could be
raised, said this attorney. who was at
one time Circuit Judge. would be
"hetner or not the liberty of the pris-
oner had already been placed in jeop-
aroy. RMS. l do not think has been
aone: Tor none of these men have been
legally convicted. They were not taken
before grand jury. and the whole
proceeding Is null and void. Conse-
quently, 1t could not be said that their
rights had been jeopardized, for at no
, .lme were they rightfully imprisoned.
Ihis is the only remedy the Attorney
General has, in my. opinion"
Inc same attorney found several de-
clslons In the United States courts to
bear out his contention, and in his
MIND there could be no question of
the legality Of this method of securing
the ends of justice.
The only difficulty in the way Of this
proceeding will be the task of securing
testimony, as the witnesses in MANY of
the cases are scattered to the four
corners of the earth. Sheriff Brown
hopes, however. to secure sufficient evil
dence for conviction
Ihere is every indication that this
plan Will be followed in order to return
TO prison the desperate men who will
be turned loose.
DIVORCE CASE DECISION.
In the Nobrega divorce case Judge
Gear severely scored the plaintiff for
ms notorious conduct, and allowed his
wife alimony to the amount of $4,000,
or one-half of the property. The court
concluded his remarks by saying that
the attention of the authorities should
be called to this case, and criminal
action be brought for adultery. The
decision Of the court follows:
RMS is an action brought by Libano
de- Nobrega against Sylvano de No
brega for divorce. The plaintiff alleges
that she was married to the defendant
in 1872. The complaint further alleges
that for the last two years the de-
PENDANT has lived in open ana noto-
rlous adultery with one Mary Kaai-
haole, and is now living with her in
adultery in Honolulu
The complaint further alleges that
tthe property now held by the defend
ant was acquired during the marriage,
from the proceeds of their joint work
and labor, and that it is now standing
OF record in the name of the defend
ant; that the plaintiff is not possessed
or any means, and that during her
marriage with the defendant, the issue
OF the said marriage was one son, now
about twenty-four years of age
of he to 70.
decree Of this court dissolving the
bonds of matrimony, and that the de-
fendant be ordered to disclose the prop
erty acquired during their marriage,
and which he now owns, and that the
court order an equitable division of
said property between plaintiff and de-
PENDANT, and that the court decree ali
mony and reasonable counsel fees
The action having come to trial.
both plaintiff and defendant being
present in court, and witnesses hav-
ing been examined, it appears there
from, TO the satisfaction of this court;
THAT the defendant has lived in open
and notorious adultery as alleged in
the complaint, and that he is now liv-
ing in opan and notorious adultery
with one Mary Kaaihaole. 1t further
appears from the evidence that the
defendant has children by the said
Mary kaaihaole. In fact, the evidence
in this case disclosed the most horri-
BILE, inhuman and disgusting conduct
on the part of the defendant, for 1t
appears from the evidence that plain
tiff lived with the defendant for some
twenty-five years; that during said
time she deported herself as a wife
should to her husband; that she went
out to work and worked for wages,
giving the money she received from
such work to her husband, and which
ba inv Tod in
erty now held by him; that two years
ago, the plaintiff at that time having
become aged, and having lost the
bloom of youth, the defendant cast her
aside, got her to execute on agreement
of separation, and took into his family
, as mis- mistress younger and spright-
lier maiden. The defendant in this
case appears to be healthy and robust.
and is much younger looking than his
wife He undoubtedly thought that he
could cast her aside without having to
account to her in the future. In fact,
he agreed to give her S. week for
, her support when she left him two
! years ago by reason of his cruel and
inhuman treatment to her. 1t further
l appears from the evidence that the de-
PENDANT, after making such payments
of Sc a week for while, neglected and
refused to keep them up, and there
after the plaintiff herein discovered
that defendant had taken TO MS nome,
: and was living in open and notorious
i adultery with the said Mary Kaai-
haole, and it appears from the evidence
he now has her at his place called the
homestead living with her as If she
e were. his wife, while the wife, who
J, shaved for him during their marriage
and while she was living with him, is
y now destitute. No stronger case could
: be proven of the facts alleged in the
complaint than has been proven, and
the conduct of the defendant shows
n such an abandoned nature and such ar
utter disregard of morality and the
/. laws of the country, as well as the
: laws of God, that his plea now. that hs
should only be required to give hel
II enough to live on. and not divide the
II property with her does not appeal tt
l. the conscience of court of equity. L
e annearing to the court that it should
e grant a decree on the evidence adduc
: ed by the plaintiff, this court dee'
: grant q divorce to the plaintiff on th'
i Sround of the defendants living IL
open and notorious adultery.