The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-11-21
INF BOLT SITS DOWN
UPON LEGAL HUMBOG
Declares the Sxty-Day Provso RsprehensIble
Absurd and Observation-Disclosures
Ashford Walks Out OF Court.

mos. I do not think that his counsel,
however. should assist him in that.
ct think that a counsel has duties
to perform and can perform them well
for defendant although he may not
have anv defense. but I do not think
that it is right, or any part of coun-
sci s duties to assist the defendant IN
that way.
s.I am not saying that this is the
case in any of these matters, but 1t
does sometimes seem to be simply de-
laying the proceedings.
UNREADY LAWYERS.
sENow. here we are with a crowded
calendar; I do not know how many
eases great number, at least more
than it is possible to dispose of at this
term. and at times it seems utterly i'm
possible for the court to get any one
that is ready. That is not right.
think that attorneys should make 1t a
point to be always ready In their cases,
| that is, of course, with exceptions; l
realize that very Well.
| 1t was at this stage that Mr.. Ash
ford claimed irregularity in the setting
of his cases, but after hearing from
the court on that matter he uncondi-
/
from the position. He placed his sole
reliance then upon the siXty-day pro
| vision. and, after refusing to accept q
suggestion by Mr.. Prosser that he
might come in later if the case were
continued, also to discuss the constitu
| tionality of the law, said:
| ''There is nothing further for me al
the present time. -
LETS HIM GO.
| s'That is for you to determine - the
court replied. Mr.. Ashford then with
drew
| Judge De Bolt now presented his
Views upon the enactment in question
as follows:
| SIT will be observed that Act 81 OF
the Laws of 1905, the statute in ques
| ton, does not in any way change Sec
1916 of the Revised Laws, but at
tempts to amend it by adding thereto
the following provision: And further
provided, that no jury trial, in any
| civil action, shall be commenced at any
term of said Circuit Court for the First
term have elapsed, unless by the con
sent of all parties to such action, in
the form of a written stipulation, duly
fled, or of an oral stipulation, made in
open court and duly entered upon the
minutes.
APPRENTICESHIP AND ABSURD.
| 'The Organic Act (Sec. 45) pro
! vides THAT each law shall embrace but
one subject which shall be expressed
in its title There is not the slightest
notice or intimation in the title of Act
| 81 of the matter contained in the body
| of the Act. The amendment is repre-
hensible and absurd upon its face. To
give it effect is to hinder, delay and
deny justice. 1t would be impossible
to read the Act in question with the
| title in mind without being surprised
upon coming to the matter embodied in
the amendment. AS Finch, J., said in
re Mayor of New York:
Where one, reading a proposed
bill with the title in ms mind, comes
upon provisions which take him by sur
prise, which he could not reasonably
have anticipated, and so both citizen
and legislator are misled and thrown
off their guard. it is our duty to de-
clare the condemnation of the funda-
mental law 900 n. Y, 577)
Constitutional provisions, such as
we are now considering, are held to be
mandatory, with the possible exception
of two or three states, which hold
them to be directory. Particularly
should they be held mandatory in a
question such as this now before the
COURT
Thirteen authorities were quoted in
support of the court s position.