The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1905-10-27
CURIOUS
EVIDENCE

The case of Eugene Devauchelle,
charged with profanity, came up before
Judge Whitney In the police court yes
terday morning
Assistant County Attorney Andrade
prosecuted and Attorney Rawlins APP
peared for the defence.
officer Manuel Leal was the first wit
ness and testified that shortly after
IL p. m. on Saturday he came out of
the Palace Grill and saw defendant
talking to officer Chas. Rose on the
sidewalk. He heard defendant use bad
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
hearing 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.
II went and reported the matter to
Henry Vida" answered Leal.
you are an officerI 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.
II wanted to report the matter to
Deputy Sheriff Vida, and I wanted to
get authority" replied Leal.
when did you swear to the COM
plaint?" asked Rawlins.
ION 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 war;
rant"
Leal 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
materially the same tale with the ex-
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
mitted 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.
II saw Vida in the, Criterion and said
to him Are you mad with me Henry?"
he turned away quickly and said moth
ing-that is all there was to It,"
John Hansman who was in a buggy
outside the Criterion Saloon at the time
the profane language was alleged to
have 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 1t 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-
lmony and characterized Roses evidence
as not being worth the paper it was
written on.
Devauchelle, he pointed out, had told
a good straight story.
He asked for a dismissal on the
grounds that the offence, If it had &C.
currtd at all, had not been committed
at the spot alleged in the complaint
that the witnesses had contradicted one
lanother, and on the further ground tina,
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 as said that the witnesse'
for the prosecution had committed
perjury.
"why should Sheriff Vida and tn,
others commit perjury" demanded he
land what possible reason could the,
have for railroading defendant to jai
or being he cause of him being fined p
And a large and distinct echo an
swered 'Why?"
Judge Whitney said that the offenc
was more or less of nominal one any
how and was common among people
who did not move in the highest so
ciety or who had not had the bench
of college education. He considered
that the evidence showed that Devau
chelle had used indiscreet language ant
fined him $40 and costs.
An appeal was noted.
! S%S
, rllF lnIAlIIIIIl nnla