The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1907-04-05

notlnson. C. X onlnh. hls baa n. n
y rroEsrt Deputy Attorney u,neth
lbs Attorney UyuDral liiHh sheriff
ll'nr, and the shenn ~ iho county o.
oahu ana herewith ro.ufn the tran
SCRIPT W ihp stenoHfnphir notes OF suol
Interviews
The facts M gathered by your com.
mlliot may be- conc soly stated az fol
lows!
ON the 18TH day OF March, 1895. indict
monts had been returned by the grand
jury In court and by order OF Judg,
Robinson warrants had been issued for
the apprehension OF the prisoners in.
dictcd. returnable on the following
morning at ? o'clock, the time set for
the arraignment OF the prisoners
About $3.50 or shortly afterwards. the
prisoners were brought into court by "A
police officer, who then left, stating
he had orders to return Mt once. The
prisoners, therefore. some eleven or
twelve. were left with no officer TO
guard them. or this fact the County
Sheriff was notified. but took no action.
and. indeed, declined to take any ac-
ton. When arraignments had all
been made, the patrol wagon with an
officer was sent to take the prisoners
to the police station. The County
Sheriff claims that he understood that
the High Sheriff would have an officer
on duty to guard the prisoners. This
was not the arrangement according TO
the High Sheriff. and your committee
is unable to say what, II any. the ar
rnr1 ttFp N ha oh
If and the County Sheriff as the evil
dence OF both is somewhat vague. The
County Sheriff further claims that IL
was the duty of the High Sheriff to pro-
vide a guard for these prisoners. This
claim would not appear to be sustained
by the Court or the Attorney-General:
but your committee does not attempt
to pass upon that phase of the ques-
ton.
The fact remains that for the space
OF two hours or more some eleven or
twelve prisoners. who had been ar
rested by the County Sheriff on a
bench warrant, were left by him UNI
guarded in the court room, and an
officer was only sent when the patrol
wagon came to take charge of them
after the ARA ignments were made.
The attention of the Sheriff was called
to the unguarded condition of the
prisoners, and he declined to send an
officer to guard them. The next day
the Court from the bench criticized
the leaving OF prisoners in such man
ner without guards. and stated that II
was the duty of the County Sheriff TO
look after the prisoners.
From the facts as developed by the
interviews, your committee, without
any reference to the law governing the
control and custody of prisoners, and
without reference to any understand
ing or misunderstanding between the
County Sheriff and the High Sheriff,
would say that the County Sher-
if. in declining to send up an
officer when notified of the UNI
guarded condition of the prisoners,
acted in an improper manner, and that
he was careless in failing to see that
the prisoners were properly safeguard
ed. If there was a question as to
1t was the duty of the County
Sheriff or the High Sheriff to guard
the prisoners, the County Sheriff, hay
ing arrested the men on bench war
rants directed to him, should have
seen that the prisoners were not left
while he brought that ques-
ton to "a head with the High Sheriff
(see evidence of County Sheriff.. II
the County, Sheriff had an insufficient
force to properly guard the prisoners
he should have taken some steps to
prevent their being left unguarded
while he brought that matter to IA
head with the supervisors, Gas was
his statement according to the bailiff.
Mr.. QUINN. In other words, we think
the Sheriff acted improperly In allow
ing prisoners to go at large because of
some dispute with the Board of Su-
pervisors, or unsettled question of duty
between himself and the High Sheriff.
If, on the other hand, 1t was the duty
under the law for these prisoners ar
rested on Bench Warrants TO be safe
guarded by the County Sheriff, and II
the custody and control of these pris-
oners by law was in the County Sher-
iff. then your committee must say that
In leaving these prisoners unguarded
and practically at large, the County
Sheriff failed to perform his duty, and
II he refused to safeguard the prison.
ers, then he refused to perform his
duty under the law. But, as we have
stated before, your committee does not
pass on the law which prescribes the
duties of the County Sheriff, as that
is more particularly within the prov
nee OF the law adviser of the board
a review OF all the evidence leads
us, inevitably, to the conclusion that, |
in this matter, the County Sheriff did |
not do his entire duty as careful, |
prudent officer, although we are not |
prepared to say that he wilfully in
tended to neglect or to refuse TO per-
form the duties imposed on him by |
law
Accordingly your committee here
With submits It's report TO the Board |
)f Supervisors. without any recon-
leaving II 10 the board 10 |
take such action on the facts as II |
may deem ut.
Respectfully submitted,
j.. x. ARCHER.
ANDREW u. cox,
]. n. KEALOHA.
Committee.
What's your pleasurep" asked Hus