The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-07-08
'NON THEY
ARE FINED
Juen and Schnack
Sentenced
Again.

: ]. II. Schnack and H. A. Juen. sem
fenced recently to thirty days imprIs-
onment by Judge Humphreys and
which Judgment was set aside because
II did not carry with 1t the statutory
provision adding hard labor. were each
fined 500 yesterday. Though they es-
capped with comparatively light fine,
Humphreys made up for his seeming
ieniency in punishment with scorching
language in reference to the two de-
yesterday by Deputy Attorney General
Cathcart he asked that in view of the
circumstances the two men be fined,
as they could not be imprisoned except
ing at hard labor.
Judge Davidson, who had appeared
as special counsel for the prosecution,
insisted that an example should be
made of men who, he said. had roughly
treated an old Hawaiian woman with
gray hairs.
w. A. Kinney. appearing for the de-
PENDANTS, pleaded for light sentence.
Juen and Matsu. a japanese agent of
Juen. in which facts leading up to the
eviction were set out. Juen took all
the blame on his own shoulders, saying
in the affidavit that he had bought the
premises for $2500 with the belief that
the title was clear and that for six
months prior to the trouble he had been
receiving rent from tenants upon the
property: Then natives began disturb
ing these japanese tenants and finally
forced them off the land until he, with
Schnack and Savidge. went to take
possession, and found the old woman
there. Kinney argued that II was the
prosecuting witness who had forciDly
taken possession of the land and that
she had been sent there to occupy It,
being old and feeble, ard not likely &c
be disturbed Hawaiians had thrown
stones at the Japs and caused them
to fee, and they and not the defend
ants were the ones who actually were
the guilty parties in wrongfully taking
possession of the property. He set out
also further facts in support OF the
property rights of the defendant as a
reason for mitigation of sentence and
appealed to the court for money fine
and not Imprisonment at hard labor
with all the degradation which 1t might
bring.
Humphreys in again passing sentence
referred to the age, sex and infirmities
of the woman who he said was near
iy a century old, but which he said had
not appealed to the defendants. You
have acted on the theory that right is
might, and keep who can s" said the
court You seemed to think that you
had a legal right to take possession OF
ofr ta6 n enforce the
law yourself. This is country of law
and not of men.
"If two white men had gone TO the
home of a white woman and carried her
out by force in her underclotheS ] do
not doubt but what they would have
been dealt with by the neighborhood.'
The court referred again to the tot
tering and feeble woman whom he
said could not have been connected
with the Hawaiians that threw stones
at the Japanese tenants, and could not
have been an agent for other persons,
because she claimed the property for
herself. .
Deeds which were offered in proof OF
ownership by the defendants the court
held to be not good. because the woman
denied signing them or authorizing the
signature of her own name. He then
went at length into the question of law
and order which prevailed in England
as an example of the sort which Ha-
wall should have. He said he. would
take into consideration the previous
good reputation of the defendants. and
the respect they enjoyed as law abid-
ing citizens. I'm view OF THAI con-
tinued the court, land because of the
mental abasement suffered by these de-
PENDANTS during the tendency Of the
appeal. will modify the punishment.
but without otherwise diminishing my
denunciation of this cowardly assault
upon an old. infirn and defenseless
woman. I shall not sentence you to
prison at hard labor. but in view of all
the circumstances I will fine each OF
the defendants 800 and costs