The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1909-08-21
EACH
GET TEN MONTHS
Continued from rage one.j


/ Prosser insisted that bail at that
amount, in the circumstances, would
be absolutely inadequate. 1t should be
at least $500. The presumption of
innocence ended with conviction.
Lightfoot contended there was no
presumption of guilt. The court might
grant new trial. Fifteen hundred
dollars would be outrageously high and
the mere fact that the prosecution
wanted to get the last drop Of blood
out of the defendants ought not to
weigh with the court. Two or three
hundred dollars either way would make
no difference, as these men were well
known and were not likely to leave the
country.
Then if it makes no difference, it
should be higher" was Prosser's reply.
Not one of these men but could raise
$4,000 within ten days"
Judge De Bolt considered that $500
was very reasonable, and ordered each
defendant to furnish a bond in that
amount on Wednesday morning Mean
/ time they would be released on their
own recognizance under the old bonds.
THE ARGUMENT.
Lightfoots motion for arrest of judg-
ment contained nine points, some of
them subdivided.
1. The court was without jurisdic-
ton as defendants had been tried with
out indictment by a grand jury con-
trary to the United States constitution.
g Defendants did not have the
speedy and impartial trial by jury
of their district which the constitu-
| ton guaranteed.
g. The verdict was contrary to the
provision of the constitution that the
trial of all crimes, except in cases Of
| impeachment, shall be by jury.
4. The verdict was contrary to the
organic act provision requiring the
unanimous verdict of jury.
5. 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 contravention of the
provision of the constitution which
guaranteed persons from seizure Of
! their private papers without process Of
law.
s. Evidence was received in contra
vention of the treaty between the Unit
ed States and Japan, which provided
that the residences and places of busi-
ness of the citizens or subjects of eth
err country within the territory of the
other should be respected.
9. Defendants were denied the equal
protection of the laws in several res
poets set forth The last one was that
the verdict was contrary to the law
and the evidence and the weight of evil
dence.
Lightfoot, on reading the motion,
said he desired to be heard on it. He
would not go into the seizure question
because the court had passed on it.
Neither would be discuss the receiving
and refusing of evidence. for the same
reason. Nor would he dwell extensive
Ily on the verdict In the defense view
it was absolutely contrary to the law
and the evidence. There was not a
particle of evidence to bring the I'M
lawful acts of which proof was given
home to the defendants.
There we're two points conclusive OF
the proposition that the verdict was
not worth the paper it was written up
on The offense was an infamous
crime and should have been tried by a
jury of the kind contemplated in the
common law. Such a jury consisted of
twelve men. The jury of eleven which
returned this verdict was nothiig more
than a board of arbitrators. Neither
the court, the prosecution nor the de-
Tense had any right to waive jury
of twelve men.
Counsel was quoting the Mankichi
decision of the United States Supreme
Court when Judge De Bolt interjected
remark that it was unnecessary to
dwell on the law therein laid down
LightfoOt went on to read a defini-
ton OF infamous crime as an o1ense
involving moral turpitude or imprison-
ment in penitentiary,
Il will admit all this" Prosser broke
in.
Il do not want any admissions
C LightfoOt rejoined.
C Judge De Bolt observed that the
+. liberty of these defendants was involv.
ed and their counsel should have al
the scope he required.
= Lightfoot said he understood thai
Kinney, Ballou, Prosser & Anderson
were now out of it,
The records do not show that" the
court saiu. Proceed"
= Lightfoot went on to cite the United
| States Supreme Court as holding tina