The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1906-03-02
OPINION ON
EOMUNDS ACT


Tense consisted in living with her
after he became aware of the facts of
the case. Judge Dole asked Attorney
Kingsbury, who appeared for defend
| ant. what he thought the courts duty
was in view of the policy referred
to, of leaving prosecutions under the
Edmunds law to officers of the local
laws. Mr.. Kingsbury thought that the
proper course would be to impose a
punishment as low as the Territorial
laws allow, namely thirty days He
said that while believing Reverb to be
technically guilty, he did not consider
him guilty under the spirit of the act.
District Attorney Breckons said that
it was the policy of the Federal gov
eminent everywhere to protect the sa-
credness OF the marriage relation. He
agreed with Mr.. Kingsbury's views as
to sentence. Judge Dole imposed c
sentence of thirty days on the reef.
S. b. kingsbury, attorney for Reverb,
who pleaded guilty to charge of vio-
lating the Edmunds act in Judge
Dole's court yesterday morning, voiced
a remarkable opinion In connection
with the act. He declared the law to
amists of Utah and Idaho and not in
tended for ordinary violations of Ter
ritorial or State laws. 1.-The law is a
political one, passed to break UP the
power of the Mormon church and to
prevent polygamy in Utah and Idaho;
it is not the policy Of the Federal gov
ernment to clean up in a general way
the lewdness of Honolulu or any other
CITY," said Kingsbury.
1T is not the duty of this court, nor
of the District Attorney, to clean up
lewdness in this community. There is
no city in Utah or Idaho-or anywhere
elsewhere there is not the social evil,
and there never has been a city the
size of this without it. Such offenses
are left to the local governments. /
am familiar with the practice in Utah
and Idaho, which are the states for
which the law was passed, and l have
never known of a prosecution for Of
fenses Of this kind in the Federal
courts there. The enforcement of this
law is confined to the class of polyg-
amy cases for which 1t was passed-to
destroy polygamy. The defendant here
Is technically guilty within the word
Ing of the law, but he is not guilty
under its spirit or intent as explained
by the courts"
TWO VERY GOOD THINGS.
petition for the sale of property
filed yesterday, revealed the fact that
there ere in Honolulu two individuals
belonging to that class of humanity
known to the world as good things"
j. p. Dias administrator of the estate
of Francisco Alves Ribeiro, deceased.
| filed a petition in the First Circuit
| Court that he be allowed to sell cer-
tain real estate connected with the
| estate, in order to pay certain indebt-
edness of said estate. The land Is sit
| uated in Auwailima, In Honolulu, and
| IN mortgaged to E Silva for the sum
OF $3.50. The property of the estate be-
sides the land consists of one gold
| watch and some accrued rent. Peti-
toner states that the property in ques-
ton is not worth more than $500 at
the most. the buildings situated there
on being unfit for habitation and the
grounds small and 50 situate as TO rem
der the same of very little value. From
which it would seem that the kind per-
son who loaned $3.50 on the place is
something of a philanthropist. The
| petition goes on to state that one Ger
mana Melim of Honolulu stands ready
to purchase the property for the sum
OF $780, which is more than said prop
erty is worth or would bring at public
sale. 1t will be noticed that the Sec
| end good thing in the story makes his
bow at this juncture.
Wherefore petitioner prays that the
good thing of the second part be not
allowed to escape and that he, the pc
titioner, may be authorized to unload
the property on Germana Meim for
the consideration of $500, the proceeds
to be applied to the satisfying of the
holder of the mortgage, who is said to
be willing to take $500 for his paper
and call 1t square, thereby indicating
that he isn't so much of a good thing
as his previous action would lead one
to believe.
LITTLE OWING.
An answer has been filed by w. c.
Peacock & Co., Ltd, as garnishee In
the case of Henry May & Co., Ltd. VS.
w. S. Peacock, through its treasurer
j. ]. Rothwell. 1t Is shown that on
August q 1905, when 1t was served as
garnishee, the company was Indebted
to Peacock in the sum OF s2o.74 and hat
no goods or effects belonging to him
By deed of assignment. dated July
"a. 1908, the defendant assigned to
Bishop & Co. the rents due under q
certain lease, at 5000 a month, made by
nim to the garnishee. On August 8
1905. the garnishee paid the assigned
$500 as rent for August. The garnishe,
gives notice that It intends to rely oil
the deed OF assignment as justification
for the payment of 5000. but 1t stands
ready to pay the sum OF $2o.74 II SC
ordered by. the court.
HILO WATERFRONT CASE.
The Brown VS.. Spreckels case regis
tered Its twenty-second day of tria
yesterday. evidence for defendant still
going in when the court closed.
. COURT NOTES.
The Henry Waterhouse Trust Co. ha
; filed its first annual accounts as guard
ian OF the opfergelt minors. 1t charge
, itself with s72is.75 and asks to be al
: lowed 1890 A.