Newspaper Page Text
BISHOP & Co., BANKERS
ilonoliitu, Hawaiian Islands
Draw Exchango on tho
Bivulc ol Oaliros-JiJa, fel. IT.
And their ngents in
NCW YORK, BOSTON, HONG KONG.
Messrs. N. Jt. HoVhscliilil & Son, London
Tho Commercial Brink Co., of Byilnoy,
The Commercial Hank Co., of Sydney,
Tho Hank of Now Zealand1. Auckland,
Christchurch, mid Wellington,
Tho Bank of British Columbia, Vic
toria, B. 0., and Portland, Or.
Transact a deuei"! Kanklng tfuslusss
Pledged lo neither Seel nor Party,
But established for the benefit of all.
SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 1888.
The duty of a sincere friend is to
point out faults and to reprove er
rors or misdeeds ; and the 1)l'm.v.tin
endeavors to establish its claim to
being the friend of the public by oc
casionally directing attention to de
fects in the public service and short
comings of public men. It is it
mistake to think that because wc
have taken exception to recent
changes in police arrangements, we
thereby manifest an unfriendly dis
position towards the police authori
ties. Nothing of the sort.
Everybody, except those who
would abolish the police and jail as
inconvenient cheeks to vice, is inte
rested in having the police force
elevated to as high a stage of cfll
ciency as possible ; and for our part
we arc convinced that allowing tho
men only eight hours of rest, al
ternating witli eight hours of duty,
and often a portion of the rest time
being taken up in giving testimony
in Court, is not calculated to pro
duce the elliciency desiied.
That the arrangement immediate
ly preceding the present wa9 the
best possible or practicable, we do
not contend ; but we do think that
the present, with the same number
of men and no increase of expense,
may be considerably improved upon.
Moreover, our opinion of the Mar
shal's capabilities is, that he is
quite equal to the task of effecting
an improvement, and we entertain
hopes of seeing this opinion justified
by subsequent amendments.
SUPREME COURT-APRIL TERM, 1888.
nuFOiti: doi.i:, j.
TiiunsDAY, April 10th.
The Court opened at !):U0 this
morning, and arguments were heard
on demurrer in re the King vs. W.
S. Luce, and the King vs. G. "NV.
Messrs. Hartwcll, Hatch, Neu
mann and Whiting for defendants,
and the Attorney-General for the
Mr. Hartwell said that in an argu
ment before a Court of law, all pro
fessions of confidence in one's posi
tion are professional quackery, ex
pressions of contempt or indifference
to the arguments of opposing coun
sel are professional buffoonery. If
the argument presented has not
force enough in itself or is not
stated with sudicient clearness to
enable the legal mind to apprehend,
to catch hold of it, no protesting
will help it. If the fallacy of tho
opposite contention cannot be shown,
it is idle to declaim against it. I
cannot make the ideal law argument,
but as well as any other lawyer, 1
can try to make it.
There is an apparent embarrass
ment in the outset in this case that
Your Honor is asked to rule in some
matters against the ruling of the
Chief Justice who, as a Committing
Magistrate ordered tho defendant to
be committed for trial. Hut the
Chief Justice based I113 order partly
on a section in the Acts of 1880,
amending the smuggling law, which
had not been named or discussed,
and on which tho judicial mind was
therefore not made up. Moreover
this indictment materially varies
the original charge, which was
solely a conspiracy to obtain tho
withdrawal from the Custom House
of dutiable brandy, whisky and gin,
without paying duties, on certain
specified false representations as to
This indictment in the first count
' charges that the defendant by falso
pretences and with intent to defraud
conspired to defraud the Hawaiian
Government, "of tho legal revenues
of said Government of the value of
to wit, five hundred dollars and to
commit a gross cheat."
In the second count, a conspiracy
"to do what is obviously and direct
ly wrongfully injurious to another,to
L4V ' 1 -- ." - -,
;kto wit, to deprive and dobar tliu
-'jwir. if) in i Mwmniii i iiiviti iiiiiinu .
said Government of certain moneys,
to wit, of tho sum of live hundred
dollars of its legal revenues, to wit,
tho duties upon ceilain imported
and dutiable goods, and to obstruct
and prevent the collection by said
Government of certain of its legal
revenues, to wit, the legal duties to
the amount of to wit, llvo hundred
dollars upon certain imported and
And in tho third count, a conspi
racy that this defendant "be know
ingly concerned in carrying, remov
ing,' depositing and dealing in cer
tain imported articles, to wit,
certain spirituous liquorn, the legal
duties upon which would and then
aud there did amount to the amount,
to wit, five hundred dollars, and
upon which no duties should have
been paid at the time and times
when tho said W. S. Luce should
be so knowingly concerned in the
carrying, removing depositing and
dealing in said goods, in fact paid,
and to commit the offence of being
knowingly concerned in tho carry
ing, removing and depositing of cer
tain dutiable goods, the legal duties
upon which would and then and
there did amount to the sum of five
hundred dollars, and upon which no
duties have been paid." This last
count charges "a conspiracy to com
mit an offence against the laws of
tho Hawaiian Government," clearly
an unintended mistake, as there are
no public laws, except those of tho
kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands.
(1) Tho indictment is bad as it
charges a violation of tho rcvenuo
laws committed .Ian. 2S, 1887, aud
docs not aver that such violation
was not discovcicd within six months
thereafter, or that this prosecution
is brought within six months after
the discovery. Sect. 081 of the
Civil Code requires "all suits for
iolation of any provision of the re
venue laws to be brought within six
months after such violation is dis
covered." That a criminal prosecu
tion is meant as well as suits for
forfeiture of goods, is evident from
the sections in the same chapter
eeeially Sect. 081, "In case any
person convicted of an offence
against the revenue laws," and Sect.
089 which provides that in certain
cases the Minister "may direct any
prosecution for such fine, penalty or
forfeiture to be discontinued," etc.
U. S. vs. llirseh, 100 U. S. 31.
"Where the indictment falcs to
show that an offence has not only
been committed but is punishable, it
is demurrable. It is an essential in
gredient in this offence, aud to giv
ing the court jurisdiction over it,
that it shall have been committed
within six months of the prosecu
tion therefor, or that it was not dis
covered until within such six months.
As such essential fact, it must be
averred, else there is no jurisdic
tion. U. S. vs. WntUins 3 Cr. 4-12. U.
S. vs- White fi Cr. 88 and 2 Greens
Cr. Rep. 2o3.
The fir3t count is bad, as it fails
to set forth what the alleged "false
pretenses" were, and to whom they !
were made. A general charge of
cheating or of gross cheat, by false
pretences, is not enough. "No per
son shall be held to answer for any
ciime or offence unless upon
indictment fully and plainly desciib
ing ouch crime or offence." Ait. 7
Const. The acts must be described
in order that the Court (as well as
the prosecutor) may bay whether
they are false pretences, or a gross
cheat, and also in order that persons
accused may be infoimcd what acts
are charged against them as crimes,
and may be advised of their legal
defence if any, and may instruct
counsol as to the evidence (if any) to
contradict tho charge. State vs.
Parker, -13 N. II. 8S; Com. vs.
Dean, 110 Mass. 2f9 ; Com. vs.
Wallace, 10, Gray 223.
The statute also requires that the
false pretences be "designedly"
Ubed, the fust count fails to aver
A gross cheat by obtaining by false
pretences any money or thing of
value is not shown by preventing
the Government from getting reve
nue. (2) There is no such statutory
or common law offence as cheating
the Hawaiian Government. All
oflences against the Government, or
the revenues are creatures of stat
ute, and elsewhere are enacted, as
they are not here, for cheating, or
defrauding the Government of reve
nues. In tho absence of statute,
such criminal offences cannot he
committed as a libel on tliu Govern
ment, or a malicious injury, threat
ening language, or assault. A
libel on "another person" may by
statute include a libel "of n board,
body, class, society or association of
individuals, public or private."
.SVc. 10, Ch. 32 Penal Code. Hut
that abstract entity called "the
Government" is none of these, nor
is it "the public generally, com
munities, assemblies," etc., which
by bcction (5 Oil. 1 l'ennl Code, may
be included in tho meaning of
words importing pernios, fur in
stance, another, olherw, any, any
one, anybody and the like. "In
England a conspiracy to excite
hatred in the inhabitants of one
part of the United Kingdom against
tlioso of another, or to create dis
satisfaction or hostility toward the
Government, or to lessen tho Gov
ernment revenues, is indictable."
2 lilsh. Cr. Law, 221, 225, aud
tho last mentioned act is an indict
able offcuco under the United
Slates statutes. U. S. Rev. St.
sec. 5110, Hut that is on tho com
mon law which, unlike our statute,
makes it conspiracy to combine by
unlawful means to accomplish either
an unlawful or immoral, or even u
lawful act oi object. Our t'tntuto
requires a combination to commit
an offence, i. o,, a public, statutozy
wrong, or to do what is "obviously
and directly wrongfully injurious to
another," meaning actionnblo wrongs
to individuals as distinguished from
wrongs to tho public which conic
under the head of crimes, or clso
under the class of wrongs which
affect the public generally, liko
knowingly selling goods with falso
weights or measures, or false stamps.
The second count cannot hold un
less It is n criminal offence under
tho statutes to cheat tho Hawaiian
Government. The statute itself
says that "to cheat another by
moans of falso tokens or pretences"
(sec. 1, Ch. 28 P. C), may be tho
object of a conspiracy, and that "who
ever shall designedly, by any falso
pretence, and with intent to defraud
obtain from another any money,
goods or other thing of Talue, is
guilty of si gross cheat."
lt'is material to notice the clear
lino of distinction between a com
mon law conspiracy, which may
consist in an agreement to do a law
ful act by unlawful means, or an
unlawful or immoral act by lawful
means ; its earliest meaning was, to
carry on legal proceedings in a vex
atious or improper way, 33 Edw. 1
(1301), 2 St. Hist. Cr. Law, 228,
and the statutory definition which
narrows the common law definition
materially. Conspiracies in restraint
of trade, for instance although un
doubtedly injurious to "another"
or "others" or to the "public gen
erally," elsewhere require a special
statute making such combination
unlawful. 3 Stephen, p. 203, 207,
Com. vs. Hart. 11 Cush.
It is not a common law offence to
cheat or defraud, or obtain money
or goods on fubo representation, and
a conspiracy to do such acts, if in
dictable at common law, would not
bo indictable under our statutes. 3
St. 2.)() U. S. vs. Gordon, 22 Fed.
It is necessary to aver that some
olliccr of tho Government was mis
led or deceived by false representa
tion whereby tho Government was
defrauded of duties. Tho Govern
ment itself is incapable of being de
ceived by false representations. The
"public," or societies, communities,
assemblies, inhabitants of a distiict
or neighborhood, or persons, known
or unknown, may actually bo de
ceived, imposed upon and defraud
ed, as bv lalso labels on goods sold.
A corporation by a fiction of law
only, may be civilly liable for the
torts of its agents, but not crimin
ally. A corporation cannot itself
"commit a crime involving malice
or the wicked intention of the of
fender." Morawetz Sec. 91.
(3) The third count charging a
conspiracy to do what is "obviously
and directly wrongfullyinjurious to
another," is open to the same ob
jections above named, as fas as call-
iug the Hawaiian Government "an
other" to be injured in its right.
The words to deprive and debar the
the Government of revenue" imply
no criminal offence. It may be done
with perfect right and innocence, as
for instance, if done without violat
ing any statute, (and none is
here alleged), or with no intent to
"deprive" or "debar," and under
some circumstances, even such in
tent would not make such act a
crime. This last clause is surplus
age aud verbiage. Moreover it
omits to state acts constituting in
law a criminal offence. How can
the Court say that there has been
any criminal act upon the matter
charged in this count.
(1) The third count is bad, as it
undertakes to make out that non
payment of duties on dutiable goods
is the "offence intended in the Act
of 1880, amending and as its title
bhowa, "supplementary to Article
2G, Chapter 9 of the Civil Code,"
which article is entitled, "of smug
gling and other frauds against the
Revenue Laws." The oxpicssed
object of that article, and amend
ment is to prevent smuggling con
traband goods, like opium or dutia
ble goods from vessels, by "carry
ing, removing, etc., any dutiable
goods upon which no duties have
The statutory proceedings for vio
lating the piovisions of that article
and amendatory act are prescribed
in Sections GGfl, 079, 081, 082 et
Sea,, of tee Civil Code, to which pro
ceedings tlic limitation of six months
from discovery applies, Sec. G81,
and such remedy is exclusive.
There is an abundance of "to
wits," in the indictment, some of
them with no apparent object, but
there is studious euro to avoid stat
ing what tlui bpiiiluoiia liquors were,
and their amount on which the duties
"are" or "were" or "should have
been," five hundred dollars.
"To "obstruct the Government in
the collections of its revenues," or
to "debar or deprive or defraud it
of revenues," is not a statutory
offence, nor does any such statement
import an actionable wrong. Tho
words used in the staluto, "wrong
fully injurious,' require both wrong
and injury which are tho elements of
a tort, and nothing short of a techni
cal and actionable wrong'. A con
spiracy to do a wrong only, or to do
nn injury only is therefore not in
dictable. (0) There is no averment that
the duties were payable by the de
fendant, or when and why they be
The declaration in tho civil action
was held to be bad on demurrer.
There has been amplo timo to sup
ply any defects in pleading if there
weiolactsto support tho required
averments. This indictment is meant
to mako a criminal offeucn of what
is niated in Hint declaration, namely,
the defendant's withdrawal of cer
tain specified liquors from the Cus
tom House without paying duties
thereon, the same being dutiable,
adding merely the fact of falso
pretenses without specifying them.
There is the samo omission,
which now implies that there aro no
facts to supply it, to aver by whom
tho goods were imported, and to
negativo tho payment or securing
of payment of duties Ihcrcon when
imported, as required law, or that
they were imported for the use of
the King, Government or diplomatic
representatives, and therefore ex
empt from duties. Omitting the
description of the false pretences is
for no conceivable reason unless thnt
they cannot be proved, or that some
essential element in them, like
knowledge, or intent is wanting, or
that some fact existed, like consent
or full knowledge on the part of the
"Government," which precluded tho
possibility of deceiving them.
In all tho cases where a descrip
tion of thclntcnded means is
hold to be unnecessary, tho ruling is
based on the sole ground that a
conspiracy is complete (as it is at
common law) by an illegal agree
ment. But our statute requires
The third count could be laid
against any transhipment in bond of
dutiable goods. There should be
an averment that were used or kept
in this country.
Mr. Hatch said that the first count
was a conspiracy to commit a gross
cheat. Now, a gross cheat under
our statute, is very different from
cheating, a gross cheat is a statu
tory offence, and nothing not speci
fied in that statute is gross cheat,
(he then read the statute). Gross
cheat means to deprive another of
an existing tangible thing, and not
the right of having a ceitain thing,
the right of collecting duties is a
chosen thing. If the duties have
been collected then he has the mo
ney in his hands. He has not been
deprived of his right to collect du
ties. The right to collect duties is not
a thing, it is a right. If the con
spiracy had been to deprive the
Collector-General of monies he had
already collected, then my argu
ment would not hold water, but
such was not the case. False pre
tences must be the falsifying of an
The third count I claim docs not
stale that both parties are concerned
in the offence. It is impossible for
two people to conspire, and one
only to know anything about it.
It seems that the name of Haley
is simply put in the indictment to
make out the offence of conspiracy,
as one person cannot conspire with
himself to commit crime. The count
does not state that they conspired
to remove those goods, nor does it
state that they conspired to do any
thing, and 1 contend that it docs
not fahow that they conspired to un
lawfully remove goods. How can
there be any conspiracy to remove
goods from the custody of the Collector-General.
It is not an of
fence to lake these goods from the
Collector-General of Customs, and
if that is so, then no conspiracy can
Tho Attorney-General said it was
not fairly clear to his mind what the
argument on the two nidicments
was, whether the one argument em
braced both or not.
Mr. Neumann stated that the
legal definition of conspiracy was
not applicable to this case.
The crime of conspiracy is very
elastic, and I suppose that is wky
the Crown has brought this action
instead of making a specific charge,
as they could not prove it. There
must have been a combination to
make a breach of law, or else there is
no conspiracy, and tho indictment
must state what the combination
was. To simply slate that such a
combination did exist, without speci
fying how and in what manner, is
not EUfllcieitt, therefore I claim that
the first count cannot stand.
The second count must fall on
the face oi it. If the law is to be
construed in this way, then the
Attorney-General and Mr. Peterson
can be prosecuted for conspiracy in
indicting Mr. Luce for committing
a crime, but I do not believe that
the law can be so construed. "The
community is not the Government.
The whole count is fallacious, and
no offence is averred. The Attor-ncy-Genoral,
no doubt, is trying to
bring a case which he thinks is in
dictable, but which we think is
spurious, and shall defend. The
count as specified cannot hold, as
there can be no conspiracy in de
manding goods that are in the hands
of the Customs ofiicinls. It is an
impossibility to obstruct the Ha
waiian Government in tho collection
of its duties. For tho purpose of
constituting nn offence we havo to
be brought within section 005 of tho
Penal Code. The indictment does
not stato who is being obstructed.
It docs not stato that wo aro ob
structing tho Collector-General qr
his subordinates, nor the Attorney
General, except by demurrer, and I
claim that tho second count of tho
indictment is not sudicient.
The 3rd count is also fallacious,
as to bo "knowingly" concerned, in
removing certain goods is not n con
spiracy. There is nothing in tho
count that contravenes any law.
There must ho an unlawful carrying
away of these goods, but goods upon
which duties havo been paid, or for
which n bond has been given, being
removed docs not constitute an of
fence, I claim this is the wholo indict
ment. Thcro is not u single count
that is tenable and tho wholo indict
ment must he amended before he
can bring us to trial.
A recess was
o'clock v. M.
here taken until 1
The Attorney-General commenced
argument in support of tho indict
ments. In replying to reasons that havo
been aduced as to why theso counts
in the indictment are not sufficient,
I will tako them as they were offer
ed. The opposite counsel stated
that there was a difficulty in tho
case as the Chief Justice made the
commitment, but unless thcro is a
reasonable doubt in your honor's
mind that these counts aro not sutll
cient, the demurrers must be dis
Several days were consumed in
the preliminary examination, and
His Honor the Chief Justice did not
commit the defendants until after
due deliberation and the consulta
tion of several authorities, and in
consequence, I submit that Your
Honor should not overrule these in
dictments, until it is clearly demon
strated to Your Honor that they
cannot hold. Any adverso ruling
of tho Court to the Crown, espe
cially in a case liko this, where the
indictments have been prepared to
the best of our ability, and in ac
cordance with the law, is injurious
to the prosecution.
These arc the pioneer prosecutions
of this kind, and it is deniable that
the people should know exactly
what the law is in regard to these
matters. If a conspiracy cannot be
maintained according to our laws,
then it will bo the duty of tho Legis
lature to enact such laws, as will
bring to justice such offenders.
It has been stated that the first
count does not set forth a crime. A
conspiracy is a malicious concerting
together of two or more to commit
an offence. The argument before
the Chief Justice that this was not a
conspiracy was not well received by
We have alleged three offences
expressly defined by the Penal Code :
1st. To defraud the Hawaiian Gov
ernment. But it has been argued
that we should be more explicit.
We have said that they did conspire
to commit an offence, to wit, a gross
client. The consistency of the op
posite counsel was not observable
in alleging that there were no overt
acts specified. The statutes say
that -it is not necessary that any
overt act shall be done, but that it
shall be attempted. It seems al
most unnecessary to read authori
ties in support of this.
The authorities are generally to
the effect that to specify the crime
in an indictment is all that is neccs
saiy. The elements of the crime
are matters of proof. The indict
ment docs set forth a crime, defined
by statute, "A conspiracy to
commit grosa cheat." A case more
nearly in line with that before the
Court is one in 2d Wharton, indict
ments and pleas. That was an in
dictment presented against the de
fendants for obtaining goods from
Hie Customs of London without the
payment of duties.
The substance of the two indict
ments arc the same. This case
shows that they conspired to defraud
the Hawaiian Government of certain
duties, and in the ease cited the
Court held that the indictment was
It was held in another case cited
that it was only suificient to set out
the act and the object for which it
was done. We have set forth that
the defendant's did conspire to de
fraud the Hawaiian Government out
of $500. We also stated that they
conspired to cheat, debar and de
fraud another, and as there set
foith, these aro nets that constitute
a gross cheat. Tho gross cheat
does not stand alone, but is quali
fied by what goes before, to wit, to
cheat, debar and defraud another,
to wit, the Hawaiian Government.
We also say that they combined
together to cheat, defraud and in
jure another. The construction to
be given this sentence by the Court
is, that they intended by com
bining together, to defraud the Ha
Similar indictments have been up
held, although the opposite conn,
bcl said that all the authorities were
against such indictments, but they
did not cite an' of tliein. I have
found that many respectable autho
rities state that it is not necessary to
specify, in what way the crime was
That portion of tho indictment
that accuses them of fraudulently
conspiring to defraud the Govern
ment is sufficiently upheld by author
ities to bo sustained here. He cited
a case in which a party was con
victed of conspiracy where there was
no specific charge in the indictment,
but simply that there was a con
spiracy to defraud. Ho also cited
oilier authorities that no overt act
need be committed, and that it
would only bo sulllcicnt to show that
they met together for tho purpose
of consulting as to how they should
proceed to commit a criino, and if
such a meeting could bo proved
then tho crime ol conspiracy could
bo sustained, so in this case 'it is not
necessary for us to state tho parti
cular means employed to commit tho
offense. Tho offenso of conspiracy
is complcto when parties have con
cluded upon a Hue of action to de
fraud, etc. Wo havo charged tho
dcfendentH with an offenso which is
indictable and consider our grounds
sulllcicnt to bring tho case beforo a
'jury. It is quite bulllcient to state
the act of conspiring, and the object
lor which it was entered into. He
quoted authority to maintain this
(Continued on page 8.)
Auction Sales by Low's J. Levey.
On THURSDAY, May 3rd,
AT lO O'CLOCK A. 31.
At llic residence of Mr. Henry Bcrgor,
facing Iho Recreation Grounds, Maklki,
I will sell at Public Auction, tho wholo
of his Household Furniture and effects,
consisting of In part:
Black Walnut Parlor Sofa and Chairs,
i! Extra Larue Brussels Center Hugs,
fc$mnll litis. Easy Chair-', 1 1$. W. lied
room Set, 1 nearly now Handsome li. W.
Mnrblctop Hedioom Set, with Spring
Mafrrs), Single Bedsteads, Buiraus,
Spring Maltrosse", Bed Lounge, Mos
quito Nets, 1 IJ. W. Extension Dining
Table, Koa Sideboard, Writing Table,
Chairs, Rocking and Easy Chairs,
Vet nnda Easy Chairs. Chandelier and
Lamps, 4 largo Oil Paintings, Rct'rige.
intoi, Meat Safe, Churn, loo Cream
Freezer, Ciccktry &UlnF8tOiiP,Miilliuc
fc Oil Until, No. 1 Winlhiop ltun mid
Utensils, (I'aidtn To l- nnd lloiitml
lot of Firewood, etc, i-t''., it-., u'c
And If not disposed of previous lo Sale,
1 Largo California Carriage llono,
S"und a ud gentlo suitable for family
use 1 Family Caniige, Set Iliirncis A;
I Genllo Potty Willi Nid.llo & Hrhlli
cull ililu for a liny. Abo, a choice lot
of 1'ui IIP.
IS. U. Free llu will turt from tho
eoi'iurif Foil-and llcretmiln Urcuts, nt
0:10 A. M. iisirp, fur convenience of
parties unending the Sde.
LEWIS J. JDEVJEY,
FIFTH, ANNUAL MEETING.
Hawa'n Jockey Club.
MONDAY, June 11, 1888.
flaccs to Commonco at 10 o'clock Sharp.
1st QUEEN'S PLATE.
RUXXIXG RACE 4 Mile Dash.
Fiee for nil.
2nd HIS MAJESTY'S CUP.
RUXXIXG RACE 1 Mile Dash.
For Hawaiian bred horses owned
by meniberfi of the Jockey Club.
Gup to bocomo the property of the
one winning it twice.
3rd KING'S PLATE.
TROTTING RACE-For Hawaiian
bred horses only to harness Mile
Heats, best 2 in :).
4th KAMEHAMEHA PLATE.
RUXXIXG RACE 14 Mile Da-di.
Free for nil.
5th KAPI0LANI PARK PLATE.
TROTTING and PACIXG RACE
Mile HeaU, best 3 in 5. Free for
all. All horses having a reeotd of
2:30 or better to go to wagon.
RUXXIXG RACE J Mile Dash.
Open to all 3-year old Hawaiian
bred horses only.
7lh R0SITA CHALLENGE CUP.
RUXXIXG RACE 1 Mile Dash.
Free for all. Winner to beat the ro
coid of '-Angie A," 1:154. To be
run for annually.
8tti HAWAIIAN HOTEL STABLE'S CUP
SI 00 added.
RUXXIXG RACE-4 Milo Heats,
best 2 In 3. Hawaiian bred horses.
Cup to become tho property of the
winner two consecutive years.
9lh JOCKEY CLUB POST MATCH.
Swi:j:i-3taki:s TRO'lTIXG and
PACIXG RACE Mile Heats, best
2 in 3. Free for all horses that
have not a record of 3 minutes or
better to be driven hi Frnzier local
carts by members of the Club.
lOlh LUNAMAKAAINANA PLATE.
RUXXIXG RACE 3 Mile Dash.
For Hawaiian bred horses only.
11th PONY RACE.
Open to all ponies 14 -hands or
under, and 8-year old or over.
A DIVIDEND of Tluee Dollars per
shaio will bo paid lo thuhhaic
holders of the Inlcr Island Stoma Nuvi.
gallon Co., (Llmitul), at tliuir ofllco on
tho 18 Instant. J. EXA,
19 !lt ' .Secretary.
G EORGE WASHINGTON will jump
r any sailor, ur bmm.lldu working,
niiiu in the harbor of Honolulu. One
standing jumps; 2 quick Jumps; 3 quick
Junijn; 1 hour go-asyou-pleabo; 1 mile
pull in a shore boat the winner to take
threo out of llvo contests for $50. Any
lair rcferco will be taken. Answer this
soon, as my timo In the navy has ex.
plied. First como Ural terved. Apply
on board to "Geo. Washington," U. S. H.
Adums. 20 lw
THE nbovo reward of 125 will bo
paid lo anyone who will givo in.
fonnation that will lead to tho arrest
aud Conviction of tho party or parties
who so mutilated my horso with some
sharp Instrument on tho uight of TUBS.
DAY, April 17th, 18SS, while in my
yurd nt ICulnokahua l'lalns, Honolulu.
(Signed) FRANK FEHEIHA.
Honolulu, April 18, 1883 20 lit.
rHE DAILY BULLETIN is u llvo
X evening paper. 60 cents per month,
Auction Sales by James F. Morgan.
On WEDNESDAY, April 26tu,
A.T lO O'CLOCK A. 31..
At my residence, Xutiauu Avenue,
will full lUl'tlblic AucMoti (on atcoutit
of removal), Household Ftirnitmc, viz:
Cane Lounges & Veranda Chairs
Laige Centre Sofa Rugs,
Pendant Hanging Lamps,
Itli AL3I JHAIK WAVTU SOIFA,
Wicker Hookers, Patent Rockers,
Drawing loom Ouitnins & Poles,
Lnco Curtains, 1 Music Box,
French Aturlilo Clock,
B.W. Mrty SUM,
lltnck Walnut F.xtcnsion Table. B.
W. .i'-ithci.cnt Chain', Dcuorntud
Ta Set, (rockery & Glasswaic,
Sterling Silvers Ppocu nnd Fork",
2 Pine Bedroom Sets,
MiUtrcshcs and Mot-quito Xels, 1
Oik Chcironiire, 1 Refrlgciaior, 1
Meat Safe, 1 WiMword Range, Step
Ladder, Kitchen UlcnMIs,
Gnrtlii Hone, etc.. ute., olc.
tSrl'remlsiM will ho open for inspec
lion on TUESDAY, April 21tli, from 0
a. m. to i) r. St.
JAS. F. MORGAN,
1'20 01 Auctioneer.
auction sAia: or
On WEDNESDAY, May 2nd, '88
AT lO O'CLOCK A. 31..
At tho icsidei.es of llr. V. btegemann,
Kinuii street, adjoining the residence of
Hon. W. R. Castle, I will sell at Public
Auction, (on account of departure),
The Entire Househ'd Furniture,
Garden Benches and Cliairs,
Ferns iz Dicoratcd Flower Pots,
Vienna Kasy Cliairs, Vienna fcofa,
I Carved B.W. Marbletop C. Table
1 Carpet Plush Patent Rocker,
Lirge V.elvet Center & Sofa Rug?,
One UJPjaiOS-I-XT PIANO,
(L. Xeufeld, Beilin, maker;,
Drftwiug.rooni Curtains & Pole,
1 Corner Whatnot,
B. Walnut Bookcase & Desk,
Pendant Hauling Lamps, Fancy
Camp Stools, Eugraviugs & Pictures,
Carved B. W. Marbletop Bedroom Set,
Mhttrasses, Mosquito Xet, 1 French
Walnut Wardrobe, 1 Mack Walnut
Wardrobe, 1 Elegant B. V. Marble
lop Sideboard, 1 Black Walnut Ex
lensiou Table, Dining-room Chairs, T
CROCKERY and GLASSWARE,
1 Itefrigerator, 1 Uncle Sam Range,
AND AT 12 O'CLOCK NOON,
I California Carriago Horse,
1 Black Mare, broken to Saddlo & Harness,
1 Top Buggy,
Sot ol Harness, Saddlo, Etc., Etc., Etc.
EfiTPreinises open for inspection on
TUESDAY, May 1st, from 9 o'clock
a. si. to a i jr.
JAS. F. MOKGM,
Hawaiian Lodge, Ho. 21, F. & A. M.
npiIERE will bu a spccinl meeting of
X Hawaiian Lodge Xo. 21. F. & A.
II., at their Hall, corner ot Foil and
Queen strtots, THIS (Saturday) EVEN
ING, at 7:30 o'clock, lor work in thu
All sojourning brethren are frater
nally Invited to attend.
By order of the W.. !..
T. C. PORTER,
23 It becretiny.
NOTICE is herebv given lhat I will
not pay any ilelns contracted in
my name without my written order.
W. O. AOUI.
Honolulu, April 21, 1838. 93 tf
NOTICE to CREDITORS.
rTPHE undersigned .give notice that
X they havo been appointed Assignees
of Urown & Co., merchants, of Hono
lulu. All persons having any claims against
tho said firm whether secured by mort
gage or otherwise, aro notified to pre
sent the samo to the Assignees, within
three months from April 23rd instant.
All persons indebted to Messrs. Brown
it Co ure-rjipicbled to mako immediate
paimciiL to lirowu & Co. or tho
W. F. ALLEN.
Assignees of Brown & Co.
Honolulu, Apill, 21, 1888. 231m
I? XT R A Kino Chocolate Cicams
It 1 1 Uiu No,v Candy Factory.
LITTLE Hoys and OirJa buy
their Tally at tliu New Cindy
JTS n fact, the Cream Camllis
aro superior at tho New Candy
rP RY that remedy for n swcot
X tooth "Butter Scotch" at tho
New Candy Factory.
17 LITE Ice tii cam Purlors Is a
ll place where you can get tliu
liucst Ico Cream, Cakes and
Candies. Telephone: No. 838
Mutual, No. 1M Hell. 18 lw
f?INEST BRANDS OF CALI
X foinin Poit, Madeira aud Malaga,
for baio hi kegs and ciucu by
GONSALYE8 & CO.,
Gl Quceu street.
1 i ''to-1