The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-10-01
CATHCART
IN PRIVATE
CONTINUED nom Page oneo

my report such suggestions as to
amendments and improvements in the
law as the experience in the actual
trial of causes suggested tonne. / am
now preparing my report for this year,
and / express myself on this subject
Without anticipating my report to the
Chief Justice / may say that 1T seems
10 me that Section 1884 of the Revised
judge in the trial of a divorce case
suspects collusion, or that important
testimony can be produced which has
not been produced, he may call in the
Attorney Gerefal or any prosecuting
officer to take the matter up, might be
we'll amended by adding provision
of law from the State of Washing
ton. That provision is that in every
divorce case where the defendant does
not appear, or where he admits the al
legations of the complaint, the public
prosecutor shall appear and resist the
divorce and shall have the right to
summon witnesses But where the at
torney for the plaintiff is the partner
of the prosecuting officer, or even oc-
eupies the same Office with him, then
the court shall appoint some other
LAWYER to resist the divorce.
81 find on looking it up that this
Washington statute is quite an old one,
indicating that it seems to have work
ed well there. But it will be observed
that the Legislature of Washington
considered it improper to allow the
prosecuting attorney to appear in the
case in this official way even, where a
partner in his private practise, or one
who even occupied the same offices
with him, though they were not part
ners, was on the other side.
ssThe State is interested in divorce
cases as it is not in other eontrover.
sizes between individuals. It is inter ]
ested in maintaining the integrity of
the marriage relation and of the home.
IT can be understood, then, why there
should be impropriety in its attorney,
the public prosecutor, appearing in di-
vorce eases, except as its representa-
tive. If he appears representing any
other interest than that of the public,
there must be clash between his in
terests and his duty.
81 have always considered it an inn
prpprietv for prosecuting officer in
one jurisdiction to appear in defense
of those accused of crime in another.
/ do not think the Attorney General
OF the County Attorney or the deputy
of either shonld appear in the United
States Court defending those accused
Of crime, nor prosecuting officers in
the United States courts appearing in
the Territorial courts to defend those
accused of crime.
ssBut on the original subject, / con-
slider it highly improper for any pros
eeuting officer to appear as private
counsel in any divorce case.
Courts Attention Called.
The situat;ca presented by Cathcart's
appearance in the VIII case was brought .
to the attention of the Justices of the ]
Supreme Court yesterday forenoon in
the course of argument, and so cogent- I
Iy that they felt called on to inferen-
tally admit the seriousness of the sit s
uation in which the County Attorney ;
had placed himself, by saying that they '
could not take judicial knowledge of
anything not in the record of the ease I
before them. As the record did not {
show that the County Attorney s office
was taking divorce eases they could
not pass upon the question of its pro- !