The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-09-30
JUDGES AND JURY
ON EDMUND5 ACT
HUI Yin and Leu Kun Are Found
Not Guilty After Long
Trial.

. y
for four days before Judge Dole and
jury was brought to an end with a
verdict of not guilty at 5 o'elock yes.
terday afternoon. The defendants are
HUI Yin and Leu Kun, the latter a
rather pretty young hapa-pake woman
dressed in Chinese clothes. The case
has been rather interesting throughout.
Originally the defendants pleaded gull
ty, but when Judge Dole began to ques-
ton them with a view to determine
what sentence to impose, the woman
made some statements which made the
Judge question whether they were after
all guilty At his suggestion their at
torney, E. A. Douthitt, enquired more
fully into the matter, and the plea of
guilty was withdrawn and plea of
not guilty entered. A large number of
witness have been examined and good
deal of testimony of doubtful value on
both sides was addueed The theory
of the defense was that the woman was
employed by the man who had rented
a house on Beretania avenue near the
pumping works, because the Board of
Health were so everlastingly fumigat-
ing Chinatown that it was ineonvenient
to live there. The couple were arrested
at this house early in the evening, and
were released on bail. The next morn
ing about . clock the house was raid
ed by the police and the man and wo-
man were both found there. The evil
denee was mainly circumstantial, and
under the instructions of Judge Dole
regarding the sufficieney of the circum
stantial evidence, the jury found
willingly it is understood verdict of
not guilty, being out only about five
minutes.
The United States was represented
by Deputy United States Attorney w.
t. Rawlins and Judge Quarles. The de-
tense was by E. A. Douthitt.
Today another Edmunds Act case will
be on trial. This time the defendants
are japanese, Tomita and Yuki Koga,
both from Waialua. They will be de-
Tended by T. NJ. Harrison. w. t. Raw
Inns will prosecute.
Before the Territorial Supreme Court
today the interesting question of wheth
er the Edmunds Act is in force in this
Territory or not is to be argued. The
case is that of the Territory VS.. Blanch
Martin. Blaneh is appealing from a
conviction in the police court under the
Territorial statute against adultery.
Her attorney, A. S. Humphreys, main
tains that the Edmunds Act is exclu-
sive in it's operation in this Territory;
that Congress having legislated on this
subject it has legislated exclusively,
and that therefore the Territorial Act
is of no force and conviction under
it nullity. Deputy County Attorney
Milverton representing the County At
torney appears in this case to main |
tain that both the Edmunds Act and
the Territorial Act are in force, and
that guilty person can be convicted
under either, the court first gaining
jurisdiction holding it against all
others. At the same time the Attorney |
department will appear in
the case to maintain that the Edmunds
Act is not in force in this Territory; |
that it was enacted with special refer
enee to Utah and was never intended |
to apply elsewhere, at least not here.
Whatever the opinion of the Supreme |
Court may be as to whether the Ed |
munds Act is in force in this Territory,
juries in the United States
court do not believe it is, as there has
not been conviction under it for a |
ong time aS&l
The Divorce Grist.
An appeal has been taken by the |
ibelant in the divorce proceeding of |
Rosa Couta Martello against Antoine
Marines Martello, from the decree dis
missing the suit entered by Judge Lind |
say. Lindsay refused jurisdiction be-
cause it appeared from the libel that
the parties last lived together as hus-
band and wife in another circuit, Ha
wall.
In addition to this appeal the divorce
grist yesterday consisted of decree !