The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-05-25
D|SPOSES Of A
NEW QUESTION
Supreme Court Says Private
Counsel Can Be
Prosecutors.

The Supreme Court of the Territory
holds that there is no statutory or valid
objection to the employment of private
counsel in the prosecution of a person
charged with crime, the attorney being
associated with the regular recognized
government official possessing the right
of prosecution.
The question arose for the first time
in the Territory in connection with the
case of the Territory against Chong
Chak Lai. When the defendant was
arraigned in court A. S. Humphreys
stated that he was the associate coun-
sci for the prosecution, and Attorney
Lightfoot for the defense objected to
Humphreys appearing in the case on
the ground that he was employed by
the Chinese Consul.
The question reserved for the Su-
preme Court was "can an attorney en-
ployed by the complaining witness be
permitted in this jurisdiction to take
part in the prosecution of a defendant
under indictment for the alleged viola
tion of territorial statute.''
The decision of the Supreme Court
holds that the practise in Hawaii has
always been to allow the public pros
ecutor to engage or permit the appear
ance of private counsel in the prosecu-
ton of a case.
"The cases cited by the defendant, -
the decision states, "set forth reasons
of public policy for requiring prosecu-
lions to be conducted solely by attor
neys officially authorized lest the dis
passionate course suited to an official
prosecution may degenerate into at
tempts to harass and annoy from
motives of revenge or ill-will rather
than such as are supposed to actuate
the course of a law officer whose of
fetal responsibility is measured solely
by desire to vindlcate the majesty of
the law
This contention the decision disposes
of in the following language:
"But we do not consider that the
statute presents any question for con-
struction as to its meaning The attor-
ney general and his deputies are re-
quired to appear for the Territory in
all public prosecutions and are respon-
sible on their oaths of office for the
performance of their duties without fee
or reward. They cannot delegate the
performance to private persons nor is
this done by permitting an attorney
employed by private persons to assist
in trials. The attorney general does
not thus relinquish his control over a
case. 1t would be the duty of the court
to restrain any exhibition of spite or
an attempt at persecution on the part
of the counsel so engaged. The public
xr-o,,1d fo1- lno X
any appearance of administering the
criminal law for merely private ends.
.turies would be prompt to show by
their verdicts their sense of such mis-
use of public functions Indeed, astute
counsel would avoid the impression of
trying to wreck private vengeance I'M
der the pretense of assisting in fair
and honorable prosecution of crime"
Claims Not Valid.
Judge De Bolt rendered an interest
ing decision yesterday in connection
with the estate of w. Brash, on a mo-
tion for the distribution of the property
to the heirs. Judge de Bolt holds that
Mrs. Robson is entitled to the entire
of the estate, and in the course of his
j OH tllc IINdI GIdIUlS SGG uD Nv
Chinese he says:
"This matter comes before the court
on motion Of Mrs. Robson for distri-
button of the said estate. The particu-
lar property for distribution is an
award of the Fire Claims Commission
ers of $500. Pang King Chez, for zee
Sing Stables, also makes a claim to
this sum of $500, or such portion there
of as their interest may appear to be.
''Section Z, Act Is, of the laws Of
1901, creating the Board of Fire Com
missioners to pass upon the claims of
parties who suffered loss of property
in the great fire of 1900, reads as fol-
lows: mo claim for speculative or
consequential damage or for loss of
profits during the interruption of bust
ness, nor any loss except for the de-
struction of or direct damage to proper
ty by fire or removal will be consider.
ed by the Commissioners. 1t would
seem to be the purpose of this statute,
not to make awards for the compen-
sation of all losses that might have
been incurred by persons by reason of
that fire, but to limited extent; name
ly, for the destruction of tangible,
physical property only. Hence it fol-
lows that no person had a standing be.
fore that court, unless he was able to
establish by competent and satisfactory
evidence that he was the loser of some
tangible, physical property, as contra.
distinguished from some interest in the
property or some use thereof.
sit appears in evidence that the
Chinese claimants at one time prior to
the fire held a lease which provided
that all buildings then upon the
premises or any buildings thereafter
erected by them on the premises were
to remain and become the property of
the landlord at the termination of the
lease. This lease having expired and
a new lease thereafter executed, some
what different in its term but practical
ly the same so far as the questions
involved in this matter is concerned,
provided also that the buildings erect
ed upon the premises, either by the
lessor or by the tenants, should become
the property of the landlord. This
lease contained no provision allowing
the tenants to remove any buildings.
and of course they could not have sold
or otherwise disposed of them: nor
could said buildings have been levied
upon or sold under execution on a iudg.
ment against the tenants apart from
tho faogahnlJ