The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-08-22

A Motion in Arrest of
Judgment Is Now
Desired.

Ten months in Honolulu jail, without
hard labor, and $500 fine is the SEN
tence imposed by Judge De Bolt yes
terday morning on Maxine Higginbo-
than, Y. Sega, NJ. Negoro and Y. Ia
saka, the four japanese strike-leaders
who were convicted of conspiracy in
the third degree.
Sentence was imposed after nearly
the whole morning had been taken up
by Attorney Lightfoot in argument in
support of his motion for an arrest of
Judgment. Judge De Bolt first over
ruled the motion and then, on motion
of Attorney General Hemenway. SEN
fenced the four defendants
The sentencing of the men, however,
by no means ends the case. Lightfoot
has noted an appeal to the Supreme
Court, and in the event that the iudg-
ment of the Circuit Judge is confirmed
by that tribunal, he says that he will
appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States on constitutional
grounds.
Lightfoot's motion for an arrest of
judgment was based on a contention
that the conspirators were not legally
convicted, that the court had no juris-
diction in the matter because the men
were tried on an information sworn to
by High Sheriff Henry instead OF on
an Indictment by the grand jury.
All the way through the trial the
contention of the prosecution has been
that the offense of which the four men
-
foot, in his argument for an arrest of
judgment, commended that conspiracy.
no matter whether of the first, second
or third degree, is felony. punishable
with Imprisonment at hard labor, which
constitutes it an Infamous crime. The
Constitution of the United States spe-
cifcally provides that no man may be
tried for an infamous crime except up
on an Indictment by the grand jury
Therefore, Lightfoot claimed, the trial
of Maxine, Negoro. Sega and Tasaka
on mere information was not legal
and the verdict should be set aside
Callen VS.. Wilson. 127 U S.
The argument hinged, therefore, up
on whether the men had been found
guilty of misdemeanor or of a felony
Lightfoot in his argument stated
that, although it had not been shown
that his clients had conspired to com
NIT felony. there was nothing to
prevent the jury from bringing in a
verdict to that effect if it wanted to
that the verdict might have been
guilty of conspiracy in the first as well
as of in the third degree, and that
therefore the crime of which his clients
were accused constituted felony, and
hence the court had no jurisdiction in
the matter and was bound to set the
verdict aside
The attorney cited many authorities
in support of his motion, which was
based on other grounds. as well as the
one mentioned, containing in all nine
points. as follows:
l. The court was without iurisdic-
ton as defendants had been tried with
out indictment by grand jury con-
frary to the United States Constitution.
3. Defendants did rot have the
speedy and impartial trial by jury
of their district which the constitu-
tion guaranteed.
8. The verdict was contrary 20 the
provision of the constitution that the
trial of all crimes. except~in eases of
impeachment, shall be by jury.
f. The verdict was contrary to the
unanimous verdict of jury.
s. Defendants were not informed of
the nature of the charge against them
in accordance with the constitution.
6. Defendants were compelled to be
witnesses against themselves contrary
to the constitution.
T. Evidence was received which had
been procured in eontravention of the
-nrox7ieion IF the constitution which
guaranteed persons from seizure of
their private papers without process OF
law.
Evidence was received in contra
vention of the treaty between the unl-
ted States and Japan, which provided
that the residences and places OF 'busl-
ness of the citizens or subjects OF eth
.er country within the territory OF the
other should be respected.
9. Defendants were denied the equal
protection of the laws in several re-
spects set forth The last one was that
the verdict was contrary to the law
and the evidence and the weight of evil
dence.
The prosecution was heavily repre-
scented in court, there being present
Attorney General Hemenway, Deputy
Attorney General Andrews, County
Attorney Cathcart. Deputy County At
torney Milverton. and special prose-
cutors Prosser and Ballou. Prosser,
however, was the only one who took
any part in the proceedings. He did
not argue on Lightfoot's motion for
an arrest of Judgment, it being I'M
Continued on Page Five.l