The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-06-02
TWO B|GAMY
CONVICTIONS
One a Chinese and the
Other a Hawaiian
Woman.

Another trial for bigamy took place
| in the United States District Court
yesterday, the defendant being Ha-
| waiian woman named in the indict-
ment "Mele Kahaleole, otherwise
known as Emily Ann AHA, otherwise
known as Emily AHA She was
found guilty as charged.
| District Attorney r. w. Breckons APP
| peared for the United States and Sam
| uel Noar for the defendant. Defend
ant was charged with having married a
| Chinese named Wong Kan in Honolulu
in 1902 and a Porto Rican named Saw
atello in Hilo last year, the former be-
| ing still alive and no divorce having
taken place.
Robert McCorriston, j. w. Mcclure,
r. f. Mist, F. J. Wicke, John Duncan,
w. F. Dillingham;, F. J. Lowrey, w. G..
Wilder, NJ. Rosenbledt, NJ. J. Bissell
and A. Ahrens We're impaneled as the
jury to try the case.
Father Valentin proved the first mar
riage as solemnized by him. Wong Kan
testified to three months of compare
tive happiness with his wife, her step
mother and sister lending their socia-
BILE presence to his home in Maunakea
street. Then she went wrong, smoking
opium, drinking liquor and staying out.
He had her corrected through the me-
dunn of the police court, but she stayed
good only for another three months
Father Adrian, who married Mele to
the Porto Rican, and Capt. John IL.
Brown of HiIo, who issued the marriage
license to them while she and the Porto
Rican were detained at the Hilo police
station for a mutual violation of law,
were among the witnesses. Upon their
marriage the Porto Rican and the de-
PENDANT were discharged in the police
court.
Mele was widow when she married
Wong Kan.
The prosecution rested shortly before
clock and after brief recess the
trial was resumed.
Defendant was the first witness |
called by Mr.. Noar. She gave her full
name as Hama AHA. She said she was
arrested at Hilo on December IL last |
year, along with the Porto Rican. She |
was drunk at the time. After that the |,
Porto Rican told her if she didn t |
marry him he didn't know what he |
might do to her. If she married him
he would take her to another country.
She told him she could not, as she was |
already married. He said that would /
make no difference, as he would take
her TO another country, and if she |
didn t marry him he would not be re-
sponsible for what he might do. For
some time she kept repeating her re-
fusal, but was scared and at length
1t was the Porto Rican
who was first asked by Brown if she
was married. She was not asked about
it in the Hilo police court.
Mr.. Noar objected to the question in
cross examination if her first marriage
was in a Catholic church. on the ground
that she did not specify her first mar
riage in direct examination and could
not be compelled to criminate herself.
Mr.. Breckons argued that defendant
taking the stand and making an admis-
sion could not claim the privilege of
non-lncrImInation. After argument
Judge Dole sustained the objection, as
The admission was incidental and in
definite.
Having testified she was married in
Catholic church defendant was asked
f she were Catholic.
81 am Catholic on one side and Nor
non on the other was the answer. ,
The smile that went around at this
vas turned into outright laughter
when Mr. Breckons commented,
There s no doubt about the Mormon
ide."
Mr.. Noar fought all questions that
Introduced the marriage to Wong Kan
nd with success until he was overruled S
n Directing to the question if the sec