The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-06-05
.FERRE|RA'S
FREEDOM
Question at Issue
Yesterday in
Court.
GEAR INTIMATES
MITTIMUS IS GOOD
Editor Testa and Lorrin Andrews
Have Some Fun in Court.
New Suits.

For four hours yesterday attorneys
argued before Judge Gear In the ha-
beas corpus case OF ID. Ferreira. who Is
serving an eighteen months sentence
In oahu prison. Though the petition
for the release OF Ferreira was based
upon the alleged iliegality OF con-
yictlon before Judge Gear. while Judge
Humphreys was hearing a term case
nj the same time. the en- banc question
was barely mentioned In the argument.
Instead. the most strenuous reason ad-
vanced by counsel for Ferreira was
that the mittirnus under which Is Is
confined Is invalid. In failing 10 specify
a place OF imprisonment
Brooks called In Davis TO assist him
in the case and as usual there was
considerable excitement during the
hearing. on this account. There were
several passages OF arms between the
exc!table attorney and Mr.. Douthitt.
and for a space OF a few minutes at
the opening OF the argument. Douthitt
and Davis were giving a splendid illus
tration OF the Castor and Alphonse"
act. while trying to convince each other
that while both wanted to speak. each
was willing to give away out OF cour-
tesy.
Petitioners attorneys argued that no
denial had been made OF the facts set
out in their petition, and that the re-
turn made by Deputy Attorney General
Douthitt was OF no effect. Davis In
sisted that the mittimus (Which Is in
the usual form. and bears the sigma
ture Of George ID. Gear as judge Is
absolutely invalid and void. as not des-
L prisoner
should be confined. Further IL showed
no record OF conviction. but this state
ment was suddenly corrected. after Da-
Wis had read the mittimus over care
fully. Douthitt interrupted To say that
| IL didn't need any specification as To
place OF imprisonment. at which Davis
became wrathy. and called the atten-
ton OF the reporters to the fact that
he had not been interrupting.
II wish the court would restrain the
impetuosity OF the young gentleman
from California" said Davis.
'Impetuosity Is good: better note
that" added the court. addressing the
| reporters
Mr.. Douthitt In reply said that all
mittimuses were made out in exactly
the same way. and the court remarked
| that N the one In the Ferreira case was
void. all prisoners now serving terms
on similar papers might be released.
and there would be n general Jail de-
livery. Mr.. Brooks presented the ques-
ton Of the iiiegality OF two Judges sit
ting at the same time during the term.
and he contended that the conviction
/ In this instance was void. as Judge
Humphreys was holding court at the
same time as did Gear. lie argued that
the Territory had admitted that in
i failing To make denial In It's return. Mr..
DOuthitt replied that the Territory adj
mitted nothing. or affirmed anything as
regards the On banc decision Adjourn
ment was here taken until afternoon.
Davis resumed the argument In the
afternoon. still insisting that the nit
timus was void. because not designat-
Ing a place OF confinement. Mr. Dou-
thitt. in reply. stated that no statute
in the Territory provided that oahu
prison should be designated In the nit
timus. nor did Il say where the High
Sheriff should confine prisoner: as
long as he was I'm custody. and at hard
labor. Il was sufficient IL the Sheriff
was not dereiict in his duty.
The court took the view that the
mittimus was sufficient. telling Davis
in answer To questions that the statutes
required the High Sheriff To- confine
prisoners consigned TO his care. and
also gave him general supervision Of
the prisons In the Territory. making
him In effect the tailer. Douthitt quot
| Ell from decision In the Fujihara
case. 18th Hawaiian. written by Justice
| Gaibraith. in which IL was held that in
| the absence Of a statute regarding the
execution OF judgments. the common
law must be followed. Mr.. Douthitt
also went into the en- banc question
rather fully. not dealing. however. with
the proposition that only one court
could st NJ time. but contending that
II this were 50. the acts OF the presiding
Judge. which In this instance was Gear.
would be- the valid ones. II was con-
coded that even II the mittimus in the
case Is void. Il may be amended at
any time. even after an application had
been made for writ Of habeas corpus.
This. OF course. makes impossible any
jail delivery by reason OF defective
mittimuses. Judge Gear took the mat
ter under Amusement.
THE TESLA CASE
Judge Gear rendered n decision for |
plaintiff yesterday in the case OF Tesla i
vs.. the administrator of the Rosa es-
tate. in which IL was sought TO secure /
a trustee TO sign n deed which the de-
cedent had neglected TO sign.
4. r. J. Tesla was appointed by the
court instead OF Rosa. There was an 4
interesting exchange OF words between |
Editor Tesla and Lorrin Andrews while
the former was on the stand. Tesla
was formerly employed in Rosa's Of
fee. and his exit bad not been entirely
voluntary. as he explained
When did you leave Rosa's Office >"
asked Andrews.
Leave or fired?" was the counter
question put 10 Andrews by Tesla