The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1910-05-26

by Ching Kim Hee in his own affidavit.
Humphreys adds that when he asked
BreckUus 70 allow u continuance he
found much to his surprise that the
district attorney would not do so. Brec-
l,ons appearing to believe that Ching
Kim Hee did not intend 10 return to
Honolulu.
The Judge in his decision states that
on February Is Ching Kim Hee was
indicted ON the charge Of having false
Iy represented himself TO be a natural
Ized citizen Of the United States. and
j. was under that Indictment he was
arrested in san Francisco.
Tie court says that from the show
ing made. he concludes that there was
no intention on the part of the de
feni3ur deliberately to ev5de the con
dit.uu OF his recognizance. 1.-The com
bination Of circumstances shown by
the af5layIts sufficiently accounts for
the nouappearance Of the defendant on
the first day Of February. 1t IS also
TO be noted that the district attorney
knew that he defendant proposed to
make the voyage to New York. and vas
aware of the attending uncertainty as
to the date upon which the defendant
would be able to return to Honolulu.
In my judgment, he might well have
consented to Il continuance Of the mat
ter upon being shown the letters re
Ceived from the captain Of the steamer
by Mr.. Humphreys as these showed
that the defendant was on his way
back from New York
u am Of the opinion that the defend
ant would be entitled to relief if the
rules Of law applicable to such a ease
as this permitted it. Bail bonds are
taken to insure the presence Of de
PENDANTS in court to abide the judg
ment, and not for the purpose of en-
riching the government. And while
forfeitures are properly declared and
insisted on whenever there is manifest
ed deliberate intent to evade trial
or Il careless Indifference to the obliga
tion OF the bond, the penalty may very
well be RENTED where there has been
a lack OF any such clements and the
failure to appear has occurred through
innocent misunderstanding or by reason
OF uncomfortable circumstances
THE proceeding for the defendant 5
deportation was not a criminal issue.
The provisions of Section 1920 of
the Revised Statutes do not, therefore,
apply.
But it has been, and | think prop
erly, held that without statutory author
ity the courts have inherent power to
admit to bail the so-called defendant in
deportation proceedings up to the time
when the order of deportation has be-
come final.
THE power to admit to bail implies
the power to declare forfeiture of
the penalty and the power, in a proper
case, to remit the same.
The Supreme Court has decided that
the appeal provided for in section -
of the Chinese Exclusion Act of Septem-
Der 10, 1883, is an appeal to the Dis
trict Court. In the absence of any
qualifying provision, l take this to
mean that such appeals are taken to
the court in term.
1.-The order of February 18th which
declared the forfeiture, being a final
order, it cannot be vacated or reopened
at this, a subsequent term.
"Matters placed in the jurisdiction
of this court generally are cognizable
only in term In other words, the
court has jurisdiction in vacation only
by force of some special statutory pro
vision.
1.-The motion is Denied