The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-10-01

any conception of ethics, he would b
allowed to do so?
w. r. Castles Opinion.
"My opinion of a public prosecute,
accepting retaining fee in any ease
in which there is a possibility of hi:
duties to the public and those he owe:
to his client clashing is that it is de
eidedly wrong" stated w. r. Castle
yesterday. Gin divorce cases l believe
that the Attorney General or his dep
uties should not appear as attorneys
That has been my opinion for many
years.
I "When ] became Attorney General
of Hawaii, thirty-two years ago, I re-
fused to appear in divorce proceedings
as private counsel. w. o. Smith, who
was my deputy, did not agree with me
in this, so I resolved to get the opinion
tof the Supreme Court in the matter.
i The opinion rendered by Justices Judd
and Allen, Justice Harris being away,
was that the Attorney General could
not so appear consistently with his pub
lie duty.
"tYou may quote me as being deeid-
j dly opposed to such proceeding on
the part of any public prosecutor.
Charges and Counter Charges.
The divorce case in which County
Attorney Cathcart appears as the at
torney for the Hbelee. is that of Min
ME Win VS.. Charles II. Will. The libel
was fled July l, 1908, and the answer
July 20. Samuel F. Chillingworth ap-
pears for the libelant and John w
Cathcart for the libelee.
The libel alleges that the couple
were married July / 6, 1902, at St. An
drew's cathedral by the Rev. Kitcat;
that for more than two years past the
libelee has become addicted to the ex-
cessive use of Intoxicating liquors, and
has been in an almost continuous state
of drunkenness, neglecting his home
and family and leaving them without
the necessaries of life or proper sup
port, compelling libelant and her chill
dren to depend on relatives and friends
for their food and lodging; and that
at present he entirely neglects his fam
ily and is illicitly eohabiting with one
Aukai. The libelant also alleges thar
in February, 1907, the libelee deserted
her and his family and went to San,
Francisco, and left her sick in bed
without money or means, and leaving
her and their three ehildren-Ruth
Mary, aged 6; Charles NJ, aged 4, and
Rose, aged dependent on her father
In his answer and cross bill, VIII de.
MES the allegations against himself and
alleges that about the middle of Nav,
1907, said libeIant left their home upon
the pretense of going to visit as
companion a Mrs. Young, whom she
said lived near the corner of Pensa-
cola street and Beretania avenue, tax
ing with her the children, but that said
libelant did not go to visit the person
she pretended to visit, and, on the con-
trary, went to house occupied by her
mother. on Punchbowl, near Queen
street, in said Honolulu, in the rear of
a Japanese saloon. and there kept her
self concealed from libelee, and libelee
was unable for the period of two weeks
to ascertain what had become of said
libelant and of his said children. That !
said house above described was then |
and had been for some time a house |
of bad repute and resorted to by both |
men and women of i'll repute and dis |
orderly conduct. That, contrary to the |
wishes of this libelee. said libelant |
continued to reside in said house for
CIV oh
rooms in building in the rear of a |
saloon on Richards street, near Queen |
street, and after a short time removed |
to house on Queen street opposite |
the brewery. in said Honolulu, where |
she remained for some two months or
so. That during all of said time she
conducted herself in dissolute man
ner, drinking intoxicating liquor to /
excess, and illicitly cohabiting with
men, and more especially with one
John Cabral.
Libelee alleges that during the
months of August, September, October
and November of 1907 said Ibelant
lived and eohabited with man by the
name of John Cabral, as his wife, in
4 house on the Asylum road near to
the Insane Asylum, in said Honolulu,
and that she has ever since kept up
and maintained illicit relations with
said John CabraI.
Soon after the case was brought,
Judge Lindsay entered an order re-
curing viii to pay costs. and $25
attorney fee. When the case came be-
fore Judge Lindsay for hearing,
Samuel F. Chillingworth, attorney for
Mrs. VIII, stated that he would not
press the adultery charge against the
but Mr. Chillingworth says
he did that not because the charge |
is not true, as he believes, out be- |
cause there are other sufficient grounds
for the divorce in his opinion.
The case was on hearing before