The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-03-03
WILL FIGHT
PROSECUTION
Defendants in Voucher
Cases Douhiy Attack
indictments.


and Jonah Kumalae will have two
strings to their bow in fighting their
respective indictments when called to
plead before Judge Robinson at 10
O'Clock this morning.
Meheula is going to challenge the
panel of the Grand jury, besides enter
ing NOUN to quash his Indictment
for gross cheat. If the former device
should avail for him, it would also up
set the prosecution in the other House
voucher cases and, incidentally, make
void all indictments returned by that
grand jury.
There is a separate motion TO quash
in each case, the grounds as shown be-
low with regard to Meheula being
practically alike in all. One point of
difference appears in Johnson's individ-
ual case, being a plea that the grand
jury could not legally indict him twice
for the same acts. He says that his
separate indictment for gross cheat is
upon the Identical facts alleged against
him in his indictment jointly with Rep
resentative Kumalae for conspiracy
The pieadings here described were
filed by c.. w. Ashford. attorney for
defendants, yesterday afternoon.
The challenge to the panel of the
grand jury is on the ground that the
twenty-three names therefor We're
drawn from the grand jury box when
it contained fifty names on separate
pieces of paper, and that when such
fifty pieces We're placed in such box for
such drawing they had been drawn
from less number than the $50 names
that the law requires. How this hap
pened is explained by the statement
that the complete list furnished by the
Jury Commissioners was depleted by
fifty names withdrawn by order CT
Judge De Bolt to draw a trial jury
therefrom, so that but two hundred
names remained to be placed in the box
for the drawing of the grand jury.
In the case of Meheula, the motion
to quash the indictment is partly based
on the alleged illegal drawing of the
grand jury. 1t is further alleged that
the grand jury had no right to in
dict the defendant because he had not
been arrested or apprehended previous
to the finding and return of the indict
ment; that he had not previously been
examined or placed upon hearing or
trial or defense before any court or
magistrate, where he might have been
afforded an opportunity to meet his ac-
cusers face to face, and that he had no
right or opportunity. prior to his in
dieting. to challenge the members of
the grand jury.
1t is alleged that the Indictment is
informal in not being endorsed with the
name of the foreman of the grand jury
or that of any prosecuting officer; also
in not having endorsed or written up
on it the name or names of any wit
nesses.
The grand jury, it is contended. had
no legally chosen or appointed foreman,
as the court in assuming to appoint
Edgar L. Lewis as such foreman ex-
ceeded its authority.
Finally it is commended: THAT said
Indictment is founded in part upon GER
tain evidence given before the grand /,
jury by this defendant in person, and |
that the evidence so given by this de- |
PENDANT was given against the will of
this defendant, and as the direct result |
and in consequence of this defendants |
intimidation by the Deputy Attorney
General, E. c. Peters, Esq, who exam |
ined this defendant before said grand |
threatened this defendant with prose-
cution for contempt of court and other
offenses if this defendant should per-
sist in the refusals which this defendant
repeatedly expressed, to answer Ques-
tions concerning the matters then and |
there under investigation, to wit the
matters charged against this defend |
ant in said Indictment"