The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1912-09-13
Case Attracts Attention.

Mail Special to The Advertised
HILO, September 9.-This morning
the grand jury went into session, the
members thereof being: John Watt,
foreman JAS. Henderson, w. w. Kino,
L. +. Nichols, DIR. ii. B. Elliott, a. IL.
salhino, II. c. Gresham, w. X. Camp
bell, Max Campbell, George f. Hall,
Duke G. Jardin, A. c. Baker, Joe
COuca, Chock Chong, w. II. Shipman
ard Robert Forbes.
The first matter taken up was that
Of Rufus Lyman, former secretary of
the board of license commissioners,
charged with embezzement. This was
presented to the grand jury by Deputy
Attorney General Smith. 1t was his
intention to present evidence on which
20 base about half dozen bills-or
no bills-as the case might be.
A number of witnesses were sum-
uoned for the Lyman matter. Among
shem were Chairman NOR of the lii
sense Commission; License Inspector
Fetter, who collected considerable
data; r. 7. Moses, who examined the
gommissio S books as an expert;
County Treasurer Swain, to whom Ly-
man was to remit his collections as
secretary to the License Commission;
Y. Nishimoto, whose check to Lyman,
Who cashed it, was a prominent feature
If Fields report; Panos Porphyres
Who holds hotel license; Kuritani, a
Honomu wholesale liquor dealer; San
los, a saloon keeper from Wailea; Leon
Cook, who keeps the books for the
Serrao Wine & Liquor Coz; and Il
II. Austin of Peacock & Co., who paic
she money for the Kau Wine & Liquor
40. license.
The charge which Judge Parsons de
5vered to the grand jury, urged full
investigation of the Lyman and al
other charges, made or limited at. III
said, in part:
Comment is not offered upon an
except the last of the offenses name
1.-THE Lyman case /, which deserves espC
sial mention because of the great in
terest which the charge of its commits
sion has aroused, because of the fac
chat every member of the communit
Is, if the offense has been committed
sts victim to greater extent than
true in many other penal offenses. be
cause of the newness of the charge i
the criminal records of this circuit, an
because of the Importance of the immC
diate adoption by you and by the tria
Jury of legal measures to discourag
1ther similar transgressions, if you fin
lhat such transgressions have been o
IRE being committed
Here Judge Parsons quoted the law
Section 2966 of the Revised Laws, rela
tive to the embezzlement of publ
property, continuing:
Specific Trust Unnecessary.
"Under this statute it is not esser
nal that the office held by the offende
be one specifically named in the statut
or that the officer be entrusted b
direct provision with the collection o
safekeeping of public funds in orde
tiiilOS IA Indictment may be foun
against him for their misrepresentation
If such a person holds his position d
tacto or de jure, by election, appoint
nent, or employment, if his Office
created by law or by regulation, an
if his custody of public funds is b
diFaetI VI indirect authorization, he
equany within the provisions of tn
statute.
Whatever doubts may have one
existed upon this subject have bee
dispeled by two decisions of the 81
creme court the first rendered in 1870
IN the case of the Territory of Hawai-
VS.. Benjamin IL. Wright, and the secon
hast wear in the case of the Territor
IS, Clark. In the first ease the defend
snt WAS chief clerk of the departmeI
4 public works and clerk of the ma
tet. His duties, prescribed by the 81
I.l h.a IL, 4
departmental collections. No statut
specifically authorized his appOintmeI
OF placed him in charge of public fund
IA the second case the defendant, i
lifted for the embez7lement of ba
money, was the second clerk of the di
Hict magistrate of Honolulu, appoint,
without direct statutory authorizatio
In each ease the defendant was he
TO be within the class of persons desi
mated by the statute.
In considering any charge of viol
lion of the above quoted Act 80
the Session Laws of 1911, You shou
bear in mind that restitution, thou
IT may afterwards be considered
mitigation, is no defense TO crime.
Your Investigations need not
confined TO charges brought to We
attention by commitment, but may
extended to all matters involving
ieged violations of the penal laws VIII
are within the jurisdiction of I
sSurt, which may be duly given J
m charge by the court, the prosecute
attorneys, or by one Of your own NJ
Der, or which may be disclosed dur
the performance Of your duties.
IS well, however, TO bear in mind I
the law requires no more of you
each instance than TO indict or
find no bill. Investigations which hi
any other object in view can not,
the nature of things, be thorough,
comments whether adverse or far
sble, based upon such Investigate
Rust Of necessity in "A large proport
- cases be both inaccurate and uni
The Territory, for which you for
Hme being are acting, is vested y
extraordinary powers Under auth
w.eonferred by Jaw, it, and those