1 Haw. 41 (Haw.Super. 1851), The King v. Anderson
|Citation:||1 Haw. 41|
|Opinion Judge:||LEE, CHIEF JUSTICE|
|Party Name:||THE KING v. WILLIAM ANDERSON AND JOHN RUSSELL.|
|Attorney:||Mr. Bates for the Crown. Mr. Burbank for the prisoners.|
|Judge Panel:||LEE, CHIEF JUSTICE|
|Case Date:||January 01, 1851|
|Court:||Superior Court of Hawai'i|
Syllabus by the Court
Every fraudulent combination, mutual understanding, or concerting together of two or more, to do what is obviously and directly wrongfully injurious to another, is a conspiracy. It is not necessary to prove a direct concert, the jury may infer it from the facts.
The prisoners were indicted for a conspiracy to defraud William Watson, William Burrill and others, by means of a small padlock of a peculiar construction, upon the opening of which they induced Watson and others to bet.
This case was a very interesting one, as showing the cunning and artifice to which men resort to dupe and defraud their fellow men. It appeared that Anderson is a shopkeeper or small retail merchant in Honolulu, and that Russell was a kind of stool pigeon, that enticed sailors and others having money, into Anderson's shop. That after talking of various matters, either Anderson or Russell managed to produce, as if by accident, a certain padlock, offering at the same time to bet any sum that no man in the Sandwich Islands could open the same. Then the one who produced the lock would make some excuse for leaving the room, when the other would take up the lock, open it, and show the stranger how easily the thing was done, remarking that a man must be a fool to say that he would bet that no man could open it. He would then offer to put his money with that of the stranger and bet with the absent conspirator on his return. Accordingly, Watson and others were induced to bet, thinking it a perfectly easy matter to open a lock which they had just opened and shut so frequently, but they always found...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP