The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-02-26
GILL CASE;''
Demurrer Pleaded
In Circuit
Court.
MATTER IS TAKEN
UNDER AMUSEMENT
Counsel for Defendant and Pros
ecution Argue Nice Points
of Law.

case of the Territory of Hawaii
VS.. Edwin S. Gill. charged with
assault with deadly weapon up
on Mortimer /. Stevens, came up
on demurrer yesterday in the Circuit
Court. The prosecution was represent
ad by Deputy Attorney General Cath
cart and Lorrin Andrews. F. w. Han
kew appeared for the defendant. The
entire day was occupied in the hear
ing. which was closed shortly before
o'clock and was submitted to the First
Circuit Judge, who took the matter UNI
der Amusement
The First Circuit Judge said: This
nlea can only be decided by careful in
yestigation I desire to say that with
ont fattery this case has been forcibly
argued on both sides. The court re-
alizes the force of the argument by the
defendants counsel in this case. 1t is
almost impossible to deny the existence
of bias and prejudice. The Govern
ment replies and says that anybody can
come into this court and say sus-
pect.' 1t may be SO and it may not
The court will investigate the matter
1t may be stated that this
matter stands by itself. If it be fact
that the High Sheriff has prejudice IN
general, that is only such as should be
entertained by every good citizen
make these suggestions merely that the
counsel may consider them and bring
any authorities in point they may have
81 want to say this: There may or
there may not be a fixed desire on The
part of a certain element of this city
to prevent the citizens of this commun-
-. .Nf
ity from enjoying the full fruition OF
that liberty given by the United States
Constitution, but whatever may be the
desire of that element, and II 1t IS at
tempted to be foisted upon this court,
it will meet with a signal defeat. | in
tend to make the Constitution a living
truth and blazing fact in this court.
1t looks to me monStrous thing that
the community should have man, an
officer, to arrest another man, to APP
pear in the District Court and with
bombastic language noted chiefly for its
declamatory speech from both sides,
then to summon a jury to indlct him,
then to summon trial jury, and then
to have the custody of the man-that
is thing that cannot be tolerated i'll
this day and age and it is nothing
which is done elsewhere and. cannot be
done here in the future, even though
there is local statutory law allowing
| it. The sixth amendment to the Con-
! stitution provides that defendants shall
have speedy and impartial trial. An
| impartial trial means one impartial in
/ fact and certainly above suspicion. A
court of record cannot permit to have
| it's appendages subjected to that sus-
picion which it would be subjected to
! if the one who prosecuteS summoned
both the juries.
Il confess during the argument OF
this case the prosecuting officer had no
better right to do so, but we might just
as we'll permit the Attorney General
to do the same thing as the High Sher-
! if. The High Sheriff has all his facul-
ties aroused and he becomes the prose
cutor. His reputation is at stake. They
say they represent the dignity of the
law and the court therefore is not
biased, but any man who has ever
! been prosecuting officer knows what
| that means. / say the High Sheriff
has no right to occupy that position,
| and the law does not permit him to go
before the District magistrate to prose-
cute. He is not licensed to do so and
neither is any other such officer in the
Territory. These observations, OF
course, have no particular bearing on
1 this case. There will be no two ways
about it. We have got to see United
States methods established here and ii
! is the1duty of this court to see that
/ they are
! As both sides cited many authorities
| it is not likely that any decision on the
/ demurrer and plea will be given fol
several days.
Attorney Hankey, in opening his ar
gument, said he did not desire to ar
raign any man but he arrIgned some
! thing that was beyond and above in
tdividuality. 1T is the system that has
been in vogue and that was at the bot
tom of the proceedings in this case thai
! / arraign," said he. Not alone in this
particular case, but also with view tc
the establishment in this community OF
the adoption of the practice and correc
system that has,SI believe, obtained al
ways in every civilized community
We are confronted by something of {
novelty here-something not to bt
found elsewhere or an analogous case
elsewhere. impugn no mans persona
honor, but the system / attack, for i
4 is incorrect and endangers the right:
of men. In that case we rely upon thi:
court to stop it and that preceden
will be established in consonance will
the practice IN all civilized countries.
Mr.. Cathcart made argument agains
the statement in the defendants ples
q that he was prejudiced by the impanel
ling of the present Grand Jury. H
commended that the judge had impane1
led the jury, not the High Sheriff. ant
that the High Sheriff had only carried
out the instructions of the judge. I
the High Sheriff had erred it was be
cause men were cropping about in tn
dark as yet in their interpretations o
the Organic Act and the adjustment o
the American methods of common Law
rre cedure. The defendant had been in
dicted by his neighbors. The Gram
Jury was chosen upon the presumption
that they were his neighbors ard tta
his previous good reputation and act
would be in his favor. Mr.. Cathcar