The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-10-27
CURIOUS
EVIDENCE
Queer Angles in the
DevaucheIIe Case
testimony.


| Judge Whitney in the police court yes
terday morning.
Assistant County Attorney Andrad
| prosecuted and Attorney Rawlins ap
peared for the defence.
Officer Manuel Leal was the first wit
ness and testified that shortly aftel
II p. m. on Saturday he came out o
the Palace Grill and saw defendant
talking to Officer Chas. Rose on the
sidewalk. He heard defendant use ba6
and abusive language about Sheriff
Brown. One of the offensive remarks
was that he'd have the matter brought
before the grand jury
He further stated that shortly after
nearing these profane remarks he and
Rose and officer Akana Espinda went
| into the Criterion Saloon and there
heard Devauchelle use further bad and
| abusive language TO Special Officer
Vida, who was drinking at the bar.
What did you do them" asked Raw
| Inns
Il went and reported the matter to
Henry Vida" answered Leal.
| You are an officer. wearing a badge
and clothed in the majesty of the law
and yet you ran to ask the assistant
sheriff what you should do? Why did
you not arrest Devauchelle, when you
knew he was breaking the peace?''
queried Rawlins.
Deputy Sheriff Vida, and I wanted to
get authority replied Leal.
when did you swear to the COM
plaint?" asked Rawlins.
"On Tuesday,.
Who told you to swear out war
rant?"
Henry Vida first of all told me to
leave the matter in his hands and on
| Tuesday told me to swear out a war
rant"
LeaI admitted that he, Espinda and
Chas. Rose had met and agreed upon
the language used by Devauchelle re-
garding Sheriff Brown.
officer Rose, Espinda and Vida told
ception that they differed as to where
the remarks alleged TO have been made
by defendant about brown were utter
ed and that neither Espinda nor Rose
heard Devauchelle use profane Ian
guage in the Criterion Saloon. as testi-
fed to by Leal and Vida.
Rawlins asked Vida why he didn't
place Devauchelle under arrest at the
time and he stated that he did not
want to have any trouble with him
and that he had intended to have him
arrested on Monday but was too busy
to take such action until Tuesday.
Devauchelle took the stand and adj
n1itted having seen the officers men
toned on Saturday evening near the
Criterion Saloon and inside that resort.
He passed the time of day with them,
but got into no argument and used no
bad language
Il saw Vida in the Criterion and said
to him Are you mad with me Henry?"
he turned away quickly and said moth
zng-that is all there was to it"
John Hansman VINO was in a buggy
outside the Criterion Saloon at che time
the profane language was alleged to
nave been used, testified that he did
not hear defendant say anything out of
the way.
Rawlins, at the conclusion of the tes-
timony, pointed out the extraordinary
conduct of the four officers in taking
no immediate cognizance of the alleged
breach of the peace by Devauchelle
Was it reasonable, he asked, that these
four duly commissioned officers should
hear their superior officer profanely
abused without uttering a word of re-
buke?
He pointed out the conflicting testi-
mony and characterized Roses evidence
as not being worth the paper it was
written on.
Devauchelle he pointed out had told
good straight story.
He asked for dismissal on the
grounds that the offence, if it had oc-
currtd at all, had not been committed
at the spot alleged in the complaint,
that the witnesses had contradicted one
another. and on the further ground that
under decision of the Supreme Court
of Georgia. the term alleged to have
been applied by defendant to Sheriff
Brown, was not profane or indecent.
Prosecuting Attorney Andrade re
marked that counsel for the defence
had as good a s said that the witnesses
for the prosecution had committed
perjury.
Why should Sheriff Vida and the
others commit perjury" demanded he.
and what possible reason could they
nave for railroading defendant to Jail
or being he cause of him being fined?'
And a large and distinct echo an
severed Why"
Judge Whitney said that the offence
was more or less of a nominal one any
how and was common among people
who did not move in the highest So
ciety or who had not had the benefit
Of a college education. He considered
that the evidence showed that Devau-
Chelle had used indiscreet language and
fined him so and costs.
An appeal was noted.