The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1908-10-02
|ATHCART IN PRIVATE
PRACTISE NOT TRUE TO
HIS OATH OF OFFICE
tFrOm Thursday,s AdvertIser.,

a civil action now before Judge Lind
say, is attracting attention among the
lawyers of the city and is regarded by
his friends as an imprudent action and
by those not in sympathy with the way
he carries out his sworn duties as a
brazen defiance of legal ethics and a
disregard of his oath Of Office. OF the
many opinions expressed yesterday
there were many more who thought
Cathcart ought to be disbarred than
there were who sought to condone his
actions or to defend him.
Many years ago it was decided in the
Supreme Court of Hawaii that the At
torney General could not accept re-
tainer in any divorce suit, the posi-
bility of the duties of the prosecuting
official as such and his duties as lawyer
to client being in too great danger of
clashing. In other cases the custom of
Attorneys General and their deputies
a. accepting fees from those involved in
r,Eiminal cases has been condemned by
:; he Supreme Court. These decisions
,,ond the fact that officially lawyer
;rfhnnot be on both sides of any case,
Mas little weight with the incumbent of
-1dhe County Attorneys office, however,
Wand yesterday this remarkable public
n lkprosecutor was found in open court as
Mnpunsel and defender of one openly
y Charged with a criminal offense.
~ tThere is enough doubt of the ethics
~ prosecuting officer accepting any di-
y lrce case in private practice to keep
ffnFe ordinary official with a sense of
z .4'cency out of them, but the circum
Eances under which Cathcart is now
ting is so plainly in violation of his
Rfath as County Attorney that in the
Hpinion of some lawyers he has placed
imself in danger of disbarment.
III To a layman, at least, it looks as if
Cathcart was pocketing the two hun
4 .1red month paid him for prosecuting
[ f.rime and then reaching out for the
fees which those charged with criminal
Ali toffenses and misdemeanors are willing
% to pay him on their side in some way.
Cathcart, for instance, was supposed a
few weeks ago to be prosecuting a
Chinaman named All Chez, charged with
selling liquor illicitly, while at the
same time he was taking All Chez IS
money to defend him in trespass case
in Judge De Bolts court. The prosecu-
ton in the court against All Chez for
the alleged offense of running the blind
pig was lost, under circumstances which
called for comment at the time and
which the County Attorney made no at
tempt to explain.
Z What appears to be another fragrant
departure from duty is on view now
Jim Judge Lindsay's court, where the
man drawing public money to prosecute
,fcrime is appearing as private attorney
for one person charged with crime and
accepting private fee to press
\ charge of crime against another.
! This is the divorce case brought by
" Minnie viii against her husband,
Charles H. Will Mrs. Will, in her
sworn complaint, charges her husband
with 'sillicitly cohabiting with one
I Aukai;'' the husband in his sworn
answer, denies the charge made by his
wife and in a cross.bill charges her
with "illicitly cohabiting with men
and more especially with one John
Cabral.'' John W. Cathcart appears
for the defendant, his name being en-
dorsed on the answer in his handwrit-
ing, thus appearing as an attorney in
defense of person in civil suit,
where the very basis of the suit in
wolves the commission Of crime. Here
the basis of the suit-there being a
charge and a counter charges an
offense which, according to Section 3147
of the Revised Laws of Hawaii, is
crime which Cathcart, as County Attor.
ney, is in duty bound to investigate
and prosecute-if accepting fee from
the alleged criminal does not shut the
official eye and keep the private one on
: the lookout for further fees.
n Attorney General Should Investigate
II This appears to be case which the
II Attorney General certainly ought to in
~ vestigate. Cathcart is deputy attor.
n ney general. Can the department afford
to have deputy Who will openly
d violate that provision of the Revised
Laws (Section 1851 which provides
that the Attorney General "shail not
receive any fee or reward from or in
behalf of person or prosecutor, for SER
vices rendered in any prosecution or
business to which it shall be his duty
to attend; nor be concerned as counsel
or attorney for either party in any civil
acffon demanding uuon the sana stata