The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-02-13
UPHOLDS
THE POLICE
TheSupremeCourt
Rules in Dam
age Case.
The Police Officers Are
Left Free to
Act.
Opinions In Gaspar VS.. NahOls.
Orpheum VS.. Dimond and
KspioIani vs.. Peck.

The Supreme Court after silence OF
several months handed down three de-
cfsions yesterday in all of which the
lower court is affirmed. The opinions
| were written by Justices Galbraith and
Perry, Chief Justice Frear still being
engaged in work upon his report and
| codification of the laws.
The most interesting of the decisions
| is that in the case of John Gaspar vs.
]. K. Nahale This was a suit for &c.,
| 600 damages for malicious prosecution,
the defendant being a deputy sheriff in
North Kona. A judgment was given
for defendant, and this is affirmed; the
court holding that:
Probable cause as ground for suit
| for malicious prosecution does not de-
pend on the actual state of the case in
point of fact, but upon the honest and
reasonable belief of the party COM
mencing the prosecution.
"A judgment for the defendant is
found to be supported by the evidence
and the exception is overruled.'
| 1t appears that complaint had been
made to the sheriff of the fact that
Gaspar and his son had stolen two head
| of cattle, and the sheriff arrested the
parties and returned the cattle. The
| I1r he
trict magistrate and two years after
wards the damage suit was filed. The
| court holds that there was ground for
| the existence of honest and reasonable
| belief of the guilt of the accused and
goes further in pointing out the duties
of police officer. The court says:
eff an officer acts honestly and with
ordinary discretion in commencing
prosecutions against persons accused
of crime, public policy forbids that he
should be annoyed and harassed by
! suits for malicious prosecutions even
in cases where the District Magistrate
may dismiss the charges.
1T is unfortunate for the plaintiff.
| if innocent, that he should have per-
mitted himself to be surrounded with
so many circumstances pointing to-
wards guilt. This, however, was mis-
| fortune for which the defendant is not
liable in damages or otherwise. The
evidence clearly supports the verdict of
the jury and we find no reason for set
ting it aside
The opinion is written by Justice Gal
braith.
ORPHEUM CASE AFFIRMED.
Judge Galbraith also wrote the opin-
ion in the case of Orpheum Co. VS..
Dimond & Co, petition for a rehearing,
which the Supreme Court allows and
then dismisses the case on its merits.
The court finds that though counsel
may have obtained permission to pre-
sent the case orally without briefs. yet
the merits of the cause are such that
the record presents no material error.
The writ is dismissed and the Circuit
Court is affirmed. The court finds that
it was an injustice to dismiss the case
because counsel c. w. Ashford had
failed to file a brief. The court says:
I'VE cheerfully avail ourselves of this
opportunity to remove whatever re-
Election on counsePs reputation for pro-
fessiOnaI diligence that order may have
implied and set aside and revoke the
order dismissing the writ of error made
December r. 1902, and grant the mo-
ton for a rehearing." The writ how
ever is dismissed on the ground that
the imperfect record shows no error.
CAN BE NO EXTENSION.
A decision in the case of Kapiolani
Estate VS.. E. Peck & Co. is to the effect
that the presiding judge cannot, more
than ten days after the close Of the
term at which case is tried make an
order allowing additional time for the
presentation of the bill of exceptions,
even though a stipulation is made to
that effect. The exceptions are over
ruled.
Trouble ahead: Weary WILHELM