The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1910-08-17

A somewhat startling situation pre-
sents itself in the Honolulu District
Court, over which court Judge Andrade
presides, for certain attorneys are de-
claring that under no circumstances will
they ever again defend client in the
police court, or, inferentially, while An
drade occupies the bench.
Whether it is to develop into a boy
colt of justice as far as defense before
Andrade is concerned or whether the
feeling that the interests of clients can
not be served in the police or district
court is confined to but few of the
number Of lawyers who have business
in the lower court, remains to be seen.
The smouldering FIRE of discomfort
showed unmistakable flame from the
long existing smoke when Attorney E.
A. Douthitt stated that he would never
again endeavor to fight a case for a
client in the police court, but that he
would hereafter waive examination be-
fore Andrade and demand jury trial
in the higher courts. This follows soon
on the declaration Of Attorney j. Light
foot who has for some time made it a
practise to refuse to handle cases in the
police court other than TO waive exam
ination and demand trial by jury.
Douthtt emphatically AYERS that an
absolutely unjust decision was rendered
yesterday morning IN the case of Chi
nese charged with assault and battery
in that he spilled hot soup on a fellow
fountryman in a Maunakea street cook
house. Lightfoot says the only safe
way to guard the interests of clients is
to demand a jury trial. To all of which
Judge Andrade, vexed, but without any
show of temper, replies that he does the
best he can; that he is absolutely I'M
pre- iudiced; that he shows no favor to
any attorney, and that he treats no one
attorney in a manner different to that
used in his relations with any other at
torney. He states, for example, that
Attorney Charles C.hillingworth, some
times referred to as one of the fortunate
lawyers of the police court, has lost as
many eases III police court as has any
other attorney.
While the unplea santness has been
developing for some weeks or months,
the two definite cases cited are those of
Tom Quinn. chauffeur, fined for mixup
between his machine. a water buffalo
and wagon. and the case of yesterday
morning Douthitt : case yesterday was
that in which Chinese cook was fined
$50 for splitting hot soup on a fellow
workman in the kitchen Douthitt in
speaking of the case, declares it to have
been one peculiarly free from any evil
dence Of malice on the part of the de
PENDANT; that the splitting Of hot soup
from a dipper in the cook : hands was
purely accidental. another man having
Jared his elbow while the dipper con
tanning the hot soup was in process of
being passed from one pot to another,
the contents being iolteJ over the shout
der of the complainant. Complainant
was Scalded and was going to put cold
water on the wound. when defendant
advised him to make a pOuItice Of
ashes. which relieved the pain. There
was no evidence Of there ever having
been any ill-feeling between the Chi
nese. the cook merely having chided his
| assistant on one or two occasions for
| being late to his work. One witness
testified that the splitting Of the SOUP
was accidental. Another said that he
was not sure it was accidental
II viii never try another case IN the
| police court said Douthitt yesterday
morning. eff ! have to defend man
in police court | viii waive examination
| and demand jury trial. | consider
Judge Andrade has rendered an ahso.
! lutely unjust decision. If the man was
| guilty of deliberately pouring hot sour
| on a fellow workman then the $50 fine
| imposed was not commensurate with
the enormtv Of the crime committed
| If he was guilty he should have been
fined the limit. 500. He should either
| have been fined the limit or allowed
10 90. I consider it uniust.''
The similarity of the case Yesterday
TO the Tom Quinn case was referred tc
and the fact recalled that Tom Quinn
had been fined modest sum when. il
he was guilty he should have been fined
very much more and. if he was not
guilty. he should have been DISCHARGED
without prejudice.
In speaking Of his announced infen
'tion Of never again defending case be
fore Judge Andrade. Attorney LIGHT
foot said yesterday:
Il have what ! consider to be very
good reasons for declining 10 trv case,
before District Magistrate Andrade
Mr.. Andrade knows what those reason:
are. | have fully acquainted him will
<h1r, I