The Hawaiian gazette., 1909-05-25
.DISPOsES OF A
new QUESTION

Inc supreme Court OF the Territory
holds that there is no statutory or valid
objection to the employment of private
counsel in the prosecution of 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
Chalk 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 defendant
under indictment for the alleged viola.
ton of a 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. ha., at.nltgo.
I "The cases cited by the defendant
the decision states, ''set forth reasons
of public policy for requiring prosecu.
tions to be conducted solely by attor.
neys officially authorized lest uthe dis.
passionate course suited to an official
nrApaanttnn 60 INA ak.
tempts to harass and annoy from
motives of revenge or iii!wili rather
than such as are supposed to actuate
the course of 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
conscience would quickly he aroused by
any appearance of administering the
criminal law for merely private ends,
Juries 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 un.
der the pretense of assisting in a 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 mo
tion for the distribution of the property
to the heirs. Judge de Bolt holds that
Mrs. Robson is entitled to the entire
fire claims of $500, one of the assets
of the estate, and in the course of his
Judgment on the rival claims set up by
Chinese he says:
"This matter comes before the court
on motion of Mrs. Robson for a distri
button of the said estate. The particu
lar property for distribution is al
award of the Fire Claims Commission
ers of $500. Pang King Chez, for Yet
Sing Stables, also makes a claim e
this sum of $500, or such portion there
of as their interest may appear to he
"Section Z, Act Is, of the laws o
1901, creating the Board of Fire Com
missioners to pass upon the claims o.
parties who suffered loss of property
in the great fire of 1900, reads as fol
lows: mo claim for speculative o
consequential damage or for loss o.
| 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 woul,
seem to be the purpose of this statute
not to make awards for the compen
sation of all losses that might hav'
been incurred by persons by reason o
that fire, but to limited extent; name
ly, for the destruction of tangible
physical property only. Hence lit fol
lows that no person had a standing be
fore that court, unless he was able t,
establish by competent and satisfactor!
evidence that he was the loser of som
tangible, physical property, as contra
distinguished from some interest in tn
property or some use thereof.
cit appears in evidence that tn
Chinese claimants at one time prior t
the fire held lease which. provides
that all buildings then upon tn
premises or any buildings thereafte
erected by them on the premises wer
to remain and become the property o
the landlord at the termination of tn
lease. This lease having expired an,
new lease thereafter executed, some
what different in its term but practical
ly the same so far as the question:
involved in this matter is concerned
provided also that the buildings erect
ed upon the premises, either by tn
lessor or by the tenants, should becom,
the property of the landlord. Thi
lease contained no provision allowing
the tenants TO remove any buildings
and of course they could not have solt
or otherwise disposed of them; no
eould said buildings have been levie'
| L.. AL,