Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-01-03

TIN. vs.. Walter G.. Peacock. Defendant
Robert w. Brcckons. u. S. District At
torney for plaintiff, Fitch q Highton.
for defendant.
I venture to submit my opinion ms to
this motion in writing because my
present views may largely control my
future action. at the trial OF the case
and because this is case OF unusual
Importance.
This is n motion to strike out parts
OF the Answer filed herein.
This action Is brought by the United
States against the defendant for the
condemnation of that certain vessel
known as the Julia Il. Whalcn" and
for cause alleges aomng other things
that on the End day of July. 1902, in
order to secure the registry OF said YES
sci under the laws of the United
States, defendant did take an oath at
the Port OF Honolulu. in the District
and Territory of Hawaii. before one
r. c. Stackable, Special Deputy Col
lector of Customs in and for the Dis
trict and Territory Of Hawaii, the said
r. c. Stackable being then and there
an officer authorized to make such reg
istry. That in said oath so taken the
said Walter c. Peacock did swear. ac-
cording TO the best Of his knowledge
and belief. among other things. that
he was citizen OF the United States
of America. That when he made such
oath he was not a citizen OF the United
States. which said fact was within his
knowledge.
That the said Walter c. Peacock.
when he made said oath, also made
oath that he was the sole owner OF
said vessel. and that no subject or cit
lien OF a foreign power was interested
in said vessel, which was not true.
That the value. OF said vessels was
twenty-five hundred (2500) dollars.
That defendant afterwards. on the
9th day of December. 1902, fled an
answer to said petition or complaint,
and plaintiff moves to strike out parts
Of the said answer. in which defendant:
First: Denies that at the time OF
taking the oath in said petition aver
red. II in fact taken nv him. II was
within the knowledge OF the said do.
PENDANT, although II was within his
supposition. that in truth or face he
was not a citizen OF the United States
OF America, or that he was n subject
or citizen Of foreign power, and as
to whether in fact or In law he took
the oath in said petition mentioned.
this defendant has no Information or
belief upon the subject sufficient TO en-
able him to answer the ayerment of
said petition on that behalf. and there
fore placing his denial on that ground
he denies that he took the oath in said
petition averred."
Clearly a Sham,
This is clearly a sham and eyasiye
answer and II is ordered that the above
portion OF said answer he stricken out
And defendant further AYERS:
Second: "As to whether this de-
PENDANT, at the time ayerrod in said
petition. was not citizen of the
United States but a subject and cit
izen of a foreign power, this defend
ant has no information or belief suf-
ficient to enable him TO answer the
ayerments of said petition on that be-
lief: therefore placing his deniaIs on
that ground he denies said ayerments
and each Of them"
Knows His Citizenship.
Every man is presumed 10 know what
Suntry he is a citizen of and he can
not rest a material denial on the ground
that he does not know that fact. Let
the second denial be stricken out.
Third; Denies that at the time OF
the taking of the oath aforesaid. IL in
fact he took the said oath. he the said
defendant. knew, although he sup
posed himself to be a subject or a cit
lzen of a foreign power, and denies
that within the knowledge of this de-
PENDANT. in truth or In fact, the state
ment of this defendant in the said
oath, IL there contained, that no subject
or citizen of a foreign power was inter-
ested in said vessel, was not true.
Not a Denial.
The third and next above denial is
sham and ayasiye and is no denial.
Defendant must know what he did
and he cannot on oath deny what "he
supposed to be true" when ne had an
opportunity to know the truth there
OF. The third allegation OF the answer
In therefore stricken out.