The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-01-30

and so as to affect the standing of a
member of the bar as a member of the
community, which I take it has been
done, it is a duty to call upon him to
explain.
Yesterday on the resting of both
sides, your honor called attention to an
erasure in the articles of association
of the Kamalo Sugar c., with remarks
that there was a manifest and pal
pable fraud. The inference to be ia
ken from those remarks was that the
respondents in this case deliberately
changed the date of an instrument
with fraudulent intent, which consti-
tutes in law the crime of forgery. 1t
is a serious charge, inferentially or 9TH
erwise. Your Honor will not consider
that l stand here to have controversy
with the Court, but believing that the
Court has a single eye to justice be-
tween man and man, I feel confident
that if words have been spoken which
ought not to have been they should be
expunged from the record. Your Hon
or ought to investigate the matter and
take into consideration the frailties of
human memory.
Il ask therefore that the record of
yesterdays proceedings be read, and
if anything appears which should not
have been said, it be stricken out
This instrument may have been inno-
Gently erased, and though the testi-
mony as to it may be meager, the mat
tiers should be fully investigated by
your honor. and conclusions should not
be arrived at without a thorough con-
sideration."
Miss De Cew thereupon read the rec
ord of the proceedings at the request
OF Judge Hun: phreys.
IL IL
had a right and it was duty to direct
the attention of the court tos a SEEM
ing error when by reason of the I'M
pulsive acts of the court an injustice
may have been done. He said that
words hastily spoken often carried with
them poison which was not intended
and that in pronunciamento from the
bench it is often difficult TO weigh the
words as carefully as should be done.
He held that the attorneys were blame
less in the matter, but that after their
attention had been directed to the
fraud Tuesday they disclaimed ali
knowledge of the fraud, which they
at that time to be such, and
W hich they were now attempting to
prove did not exist, though admitting
it yesterday.
Every lawyer and every citizen
knows that bookkeeping is a record of
daily transactions, and nothing could
Justify a false entry. There was no
evidence of a certain fact and, in view
IF the physical evidence on the face of
The articles of corporation. it appeared
to the Court that the alteration was
made fraudulently. The Court gave
an opportunity, however.
q produce evidence. In face of what
appeared to be palpable fraud, the
Court was justified in making its re-
marks in the absence of explanations
I'm criticising what appears to the .
,ourt to be a plain and palpable fraud,
he Court has a right to pronounce
tself in plain and unmistakable terms.
You cannot sugar coat or gloss over
his fact, and what is in the absence
# explanations a plain fraud, which
wen if not alone worthy of passing
omment. taken in connection with the
extraordinary, vague and evasive tesi-
nony of these defendants. is shown ID
,e such. 1 will repeat with the same
Emphasis that it but accentuates their
fraudulent testimony in this case.
Cecil Brown was then called and tes-
flied that the articles were prepared I
n his office, but he had no definite |
ecollection of the date, though he
bought they were drawn in the latter
art of March or early in April. Judge
,dings took them to the treasurer for
ling on or about the fourth day Of s
lay. 7
Frank Hustace was then called and L
astifed that he did not make the a
hange in the documents, but that he
ad signed the articles on the 10th day
April, according to the minutes in h
is record. On cross-examination he I