The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-05-25
VISITORS
WHO DRANK
No Evidence of
Passing of
Money.
Turk Case Is Continued
to Get Legislators
Testimony.
Some Young Men Had Champagne
and Whiskey but Others
Failed to Enter.


standing space in the police court Sat
urday morning waited with expectancy
until the cases against Mrs. Frank
Turk and Miss Mabel Lyle were called
by Deputy Sheriff Chillingworth. 1t
was a mixed gathering of men, and the
two women defendants, with their at
terney. A. S. Humphreys. were the
center of attraction, as they sat near
the witness box. High Sheriff Brown
arrived in the courtroom shortly after
Mr. Chillingworth called the cases, and
conducted the prosecution when the
Deputy was called as witness to the
First Circuit Court.
Owing to the absence of three MEM
bers of the House of representatives,
who had been summoned by the prose-
cution as witnesses, who were alleged
to have remained away on the ground
of their exemption from summary pro-
cesses. the prosecution asked that the
case be continued until May 20, when
the three members may be free from
their obligations as Legislators. This
application was made when the case
was half finished, and Judge Dickey
granted the motion, on the ground
that the defense had secured con-.
tinuance on the first appearance, about
a week since.
The complaint in the case stated that
the defendants were charged with
keeping a disorderly house, in that
they sold spirituous liquors without a
license. Several witnesses were called.
and although some conceded that they
had drunk liquor at Mrs. Turks place.
they claimed that they had paid no
Turk had acted as hostess and did the
treating, although one witness testified
that he "heIped himself to liquor
which he found there, and that the
liquor was champagne.
DEMURs TO COMPLAINT.
Attorney Humphreys at the outset
demurred to the complaint. THE first
ground of demurrer" said he, Inter
posed in behalf of these defendants, is
that the complaint is based on infor-
nation and belief. AS to the ground
of the demurrer. 1 might say it is we'll
settled by the authorities that infor-
nation alone in criminal action,
must be upon some direct averment of
the charge, and not merely upon infor-
nation and belief, and this is made SIM
ply as a matter of gossip and hearsay.
In some Jurisdictions they go so far as
to hold that an injunction could not be
issued upon an allegation of informa-
ton and belief. Otherwise in this
case, the prosecution should file affida-
Wits of direct knowledge. If these de-
PENDANTS are required to plead to this
complaint, they will do so in contra
vention to the sixth amendment to the
Constitution. This indictment is vague,
in that - does not specify when
liquor was sold. 1t simply charges that
liquor was sold within one month past.
THE other charge is that they are
guilty of keeping a disorderly house, in
that they are keeping a place for the
sale of spurious liquors without IL
cense. The information does not fol-
low the language of the statute, and
even considering that spirituous liquors
may be construed as intoxicating
liquors, there is no definite charge as
to when these defendants sold it. or to
whom
Judge Dickey promptly overruled the
demurrer, and plea of not guilty was
The prosecution then called as its first
witness, Willie Roth. At this juncture,
Humphreys objected TO the language of
the subpoena. in which the word. Con
stable" appears, alleging that such an
officer has not been known in the
Islands for long period. and he char
acterized the return of a. Mossmann. a
police officer, to be without a proper
description of himself as an officer to
serve the police summons. The objec-
ton was overruled- Roth did not re-
spond and Dan Vida was called
DO you know Mrs Turk?" inquired
the Deputy. Il do"
Have you ever been at Mrs Turks
house?" No
.sYou know where the house is? F"
Eyes. in the old Schmidt place"
you have never been at her house,