The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-06-13
THURSTON
IS UPHELD
CONTINUED from Page l.

return that there is no Judgment of i'm
prisonment for a contempt generally, or
Tor contempt in refusing to answer
questions There is not any conviction or
adjudication by the Court that Mr..
Adams had been guilty of a contempt.
without such judgment the Court had
no right to commit him to prison nor the
sherin to detain him. 1t is true and was
admitted on the argument, that Mr..
Adams did refuse to answer questions
asked by the Grand Jury, and it may be
true that the Court considered that
contempt for which he deserved iInpris-
onment, but no such judgment has been
rendered in the case; and, however many
contempts the prisoner may have COM
mitted, it is not lawful to imprison him
| until convicted thereof by the judgment
of the Court, which Judgment and con-
Viction must appear by the record"
See also Privett VS.. Presley, GO Ind,
49l; Elk parte O'Brien, 127 Mo-, AT; Peo-
pie vs.. Bennett, Paige, 2S2: In re Blair,
| 4 Wis, $50; Sherwood VS.. Sherwood, go
| Conn, /; People VS.. Cavanagh, I Parker
| Or. R., 5SS.
| The same view seems to be held in
| England. In Elk parte Sandau, l PHI. 49,
| Cos the order after setting forth various
| recitals Went on as follows: That the
| said Andrew Van Sandau 90 stand COM
iiittSu " tue custody OF the Keeper OF
| the Queens Prison for his contempt of
this Court IN writing. printing, and pub
| fishing the aforesaid printed paper. so
set out aforesaid in the schedule to
the said petition The question was
whether this amounted to an adjudica-
| ton that the party had written and pub
lished the paper so set out, and that in
! so doing he had been guilty of contempt.
The Lord Chancellor said: IF this form
| of order had been used for the first time
upon the present occasion, and there
| We're precedents to appeal to on the
| subject, l should have come to the con-
clusion that the order was insufficient.
should have considered it necessary that
| there should have been a direct and dis
| tinct adjudication, and not by way of in
| ference and argument merely, that the
party accused bad committed the act
complained of, and that such act was a
contempt of the Court" He then refer
| red to precedents which contained such
direct adjudications and to others which
contained indirect adjudications in the
form then in question in which the or
| ders contained the words for his con-
! tempt" etc, or their equivalent, and,
while commencing the former as the
more correct and proper, held the latter
sufficient in view of the precedents.
| In the present case there is not even
an indirect adjudication that the petition
| er was guilty of contempt.
The only case cited contra that seems
| TO have bearing on this point is People
VS.. Nevins, 1 Hill, 154. The decision in
that case is devoted mostly to other
questions. There is very little said on
| this point and that does not commend
itself to ones sense of reason. In that
case the contempt was a civil contempt.
The Court seemed to rely to large ex-
tent on special statutes. Whether the
case is still regarded as correctly decid-
ed in that jurisdiction may be a ques-
ton. See Bigelow's Overruled Cases
page 379 referring TO the later case OF
People VS.. Cowles, 4 Keyes, IS, 80, which
is not at hand. j would hardly be justi-
fled in following People VS.. Nevins, in the
light of the other cases above cited
1t will be unnecessary to consider the
lother points that were raised
find that no legal cause has been
shown for the petitioners Imprisonment
and he is accordingly discharged there
from. w. F. F'REAR.
A S. Hartwell and Kinney, Ballou &
Mechanism for the petitioner; F. e
Thompson for the respondent.