The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1910-05-26
LAW HARD On
INNOCENT MAN
Judge Renders Decision That IS
Contrary to His Own View
of Facts.


Iee for the setting aside of the order
FORGETTING the $1,000 bail bond of the
Chinese ought in justice to be granted,
United States District Judge Robertson
yesterday morning denied the motion.
This means that it costs Ching Kim
Hee $1,000 because the steamer on
which he was travelling failed to arrive
at Honolulu on the date she should
have arrived.
The Judge denied the motion, not
withstanding its apparent justice, for
the reason that there is no law which
! would permit of its being granted The
| incident serves to illustrate the made
| quacv of the law aud the fact that law
| and justice are not always synonymous.
Ching Kim Hee was arrested on a
warrant sworn to by United States Dis
trict Attorney Breckons August f, 1909,
charging him with being a Chinese
laborer within the limits of the Ter
| ritOry without a certificate Of residence.
Upon a hearing had before a United
States commissioner Ching Kim Hee,
without prejudice, pleaded guilty and
was sentenced to deportation. The
man, however, pleaded guilty because
| of the fact that the American Hawai-
ian steamship Texan, on which he was
| employed as steward, was to sail for
| New York that same evening and he
| did not have time to stay and fight
| the case. 1t was understood that, in
| pleading guilty so he could get away
wlth the steamer he did not prejudice
his right to appeal to the United States
| district court.
The defendant took his appeal and
gave cognizance for appearance in the
sum of $1,000, with two sureties, it be-
! ing conditioned that he should appear
before the court February l, 1910. He
| was released from custody. and on Feb
| ruary Is. when he was called and did
not put IN an appearance, his bond was
| declared forfeited. His two suretles
had required him to put $1,000 in the
bank to cover the amount of the bond,
| and when the bond was declared for
feited, they drew down his $1,000 to
reimburse themselves.
And yet it appears that Ching Kim
Hee was not to blame for his failure
| to appear before the court. 1t was
simply the failure of his ship to arrive
when it was expected she would arrive
| that cost him his thousand dollars.
| On April % the defendant. by his
| attorney, A S. Humphreys, filed mo-
| ton to vacate the order Of forfeiture,
| and it is this motion which the court
now denies. The motion was supported
| by an affidavit, in which the defendant
! states that he has for twenty years
| been seafarlng man employed on
| American vessels-this Notwithstanding
| the fact that it is now sought to deport
him as a Chinese laborer Illegally in
| the country. For six years, he has been
a steward on the steamship Texan; he
| is a married man. his wife living IN
| Honolulu and being supported entirely
! by his wages. He sets forth that in
| the proceedings before the commission
! err he was represented by y. :. Hum
| phreys At the time of his arrest the
| Texan was about to sail for New ork
and the master of the vessel earnestly
requested him to go as steward, assur-
| ing the defendant that he would be able
to return to Honolulu by the first day
| Of February. 1910. Breckons knew that
| the Chinese was going on the Texan,
! having been Informed of that fact be
! fore the vessel sailed. and he made no
| objection Yet it is his failure to con
sent to 2 postponement of the trial that
| puts Ching Kim Hee in the hole
From New York Ching KIM Hee