The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-11-08
SHE LOVED
TOO WELL
Woman Shielded a
Man Who Beat
Her.
(From Thursdays daily)

u
the strapping six-footer whom she tried
to shield, was given n thirty days Jail
sentence. The story is one of extreme
pathos, and though neither of the actors
in the little drama seemed to be much
affected by the event, the court specta-
tors were
Mccarthy was charged with assault
and battery and found guilty by Judge |
Wilcox from which decision he appeal |
ed The case was retired before the |
following jurymen in Circuit Court yes |
terday: George w. Harrison, Isiah |
Bray, David Motley, George Dudoit |
John Hansmann, Jonah X. Nakila,
Joseph Richards, George X. Kaia, Her
man Levy, George w. Mason, Jacob
Lando, James NJ. Sims.
The prosecuting witness. Katie Au-
kai. Is a frail delicate little woman, and
has the appearance Of a South Sea ISL
ander. In the District Court she had
testified that the defendant had brutal
| ~ beaten and bruised her. but when she
was called before the Circuit Court yes
terday, she told an altogether different
story. She denied that Mccarthy had
beaten her and when the records of the
lower court were introduced to show
her testimony there, she said she had
been mistaken, and that at that trial
she had referred to man other than
Mccarthy. Her testimony yesterday
was wholly at variance with the first
story, and showed plainly that she was
attempting to shield the culprit. The
evidence of Judge Wilcox and Of wit
nesses to the assault altogether belied
the evidence of the prosecuting witness
: and at the conclusion of her testimony,
the CON- ordered the jury excused and
ordere! the witness taken into custody,
until a complaint charging her with
perjury could be filed Everyone ap-
peared sorry for the woman that at
tempted to shield the man she loved
, even to the extent of committing per-
, jury. but from her responses there APP
peared to be little doubt OF her guilt and
, she was led of to Jail in charge of the
r bailiff.
The jury in the case against Mccarthy
were out but a few minutes when they
returned with verdict of guilty.
!, The court Immediately passed SEN
: tence Of month in Jail, asking first II
Mccarthy had any reason to present
why sentence should not be passed
The prisoner mumbled some excuse
and the court then stated that no len
= iency could be shown man of such
a physique who had attacked n frail. little
!, woman as he had done. "She plainly
, showed" said the court, that she was
. attached to you. and sought to save you
by committing perjury herself, and
5 making herself liable to a long imprs-
onment. 1t Is not shown that you con-
spired with her to commit subornation
OF perjury, and it is to be hoped you did
not. ! do not believe that fine would
he sufficient and it is the sentence OF
the court that you be confined in Oahu
prison for the term of thirty days"
ANOTHER TRAMWAYS MAN.
Kane who pleaded guilty to the theft
of sl.75 from the Tramways Company
+ was sent to Jail for ten days, the court
admonishing him that the extenuating
: circumstances shown in connection with
the two boys sentenced Tuesday were
not apparent, in his case. as he was a
man Of mature years.
, COURT CENSURES POLICE.
, In the case OF All PAX plea of guilty
to the charge of assault with danger
Gus weapon was entered. The court i'm
posed sentence of 800 and costs after
first hearing evidence as to the assault.
The abused party was a policeman who
said he was trying to separate the
combatants in Hawaiian Chinese riot.
, All PAX said that ne was also trying to
separate the parties. The court in
, passing sentence stated: "A man who
undertakes to make peace with an axe
generally fails, 1t is the duty of this
court to protect officers in the discharge
of their functions. ! have no doubt that
the police do abuse and have abused the
power invested in them by law. and act
without discretion, using brute force
where kindly coercion would serve the
same purpose. This is not the case here
however, and the court will impose a
fine of $780,
INCOME TAX AGAIN.
An entirely new question is raised in
the suit of Frank Halstead VS.. j. w.
Pratt, tax assessor, on an agreed state
b. ment Of facts submitted to the Supreme
I Court yesterday. Plaintiff claims that on
June !. 1901. he received from the Ha-
waiian Trust Company, administrator of
the estate of Robert Halstead, deceased,
the sum of Sso69l.l7, as his share of the
estate, and that on May g, 1901 the ad-
m!nistrator of the estate had paid TO the
collector of internal revenue under the
} provisions of Section % of Chapter AS.
:, tax of s0,75 on each 800 of said share.
i amounting to Sl5jlO
: That on the I'D day OF July, 1901, the
plaintiff made a return of the income re-
{ ceived by him TO the assessor and under
the heading of exemptions placed the
amount of $4,000. as requests and inher-
itances otherwise taxed as SUCH
1t Is further alleged that plaintiff re-
ceiyed a notice from the assessor disal-
n lowing the deduction claimed,
e The points in controversy are given as
e follows:
a "Plaintiff claims that under the provi.
sions of Section 4, OF Act % OF the SEES
sion of 1901, said distr!butive share in the
estate of Robert Halstead received by
plaintiff, is exempt from taxation as part
NJ. Of the income received by him during the
= period aforesaid, on the ground that II /.
" an Inheritance otherwise taxed as such
l. within the meaning of the law.
e Defendant claims that such distrlbu,
tive share received by plaintiff is sub