The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1859-08-04
Supreme Court.-JnIy Term-1S59.

There are few countries in the world where more
care has been bestowed in the formation and arrange
ment of the Judiciary Department, or n larger pro-
portion of the public revenue is devoted to its main
tenance, than here in the Hawaiian Kingdom. Here
we are, a people-or nineteen-twentieths OF it-but
just emerging from a state of barbarism, enjoying in
our Supreme Court and its circuit branches the rights
of trial by jury, at chambers and equity, in q
degree not excelled in older countries. Without an
exception that we can point to, our judges, in those
branches of our judiciary system which We have
named, are men of sterling integrity and intelli-
gence, who would honor the same positions in other
countries.
These facts should command for our courts and
their decisions that respect which they merit Fiat
~justicia, ruat celum-was the motto Of our late
honored Chief Justice LEE, to whom in a great mea-
sure we are indebted for the privileges We possess,
and SO long as that motto is observed by our judges
in their decisions, so long will they enjoy the public
respect.
The late term of the Supreme Court, which only
closed on Saturday last, was unusually long and
tedious. Several interesting cases were brought up,
but we have deferred giving the proceedings till
the close of the sitting. The following report is fur
nished to US by ]. E. Barnard, Esq, Clerk of the
Court.
me nrst case called on for trial was that Of the
King Us Henry II. Sawyer accused of distilling
spirits within this Kingdom, contrary TO the provi-
sions of the Joint Resolution to carry into effect the
sixth article of the Treaties concluded at Honolulu
between the Government of the Hawaiian Islands
and the Governments Of France and Great Britain
of Goth March, 1916, in relation to brandies. &c,
passed on the third day of April. 1916, and the 1st
Section of an Act to amend certain Acts relating to
the punishment and prevention of smuggling, ap-
proved 18th June, 1854, and contrary to the peace
of Kamehameha w., his crown, and dignity.
Upon the indictment being read and the case
opened to the Jury, J.: Montgomery, defendants
counsel, demurred to it, as insufficient in law.
1st. That it was based upon a Joint Resolution of
1916, which was passed for the purpose of g carry
ing into effect the 9th Articles of Treaties concluded
at Honolulu between the Government of the Hawaii
an Islands and the Governments of France and Great
Britain, 26th March 1916, in relation to brandies,
wines and other spirituous liquors treaties
were not now in force. having been ~abrogated and
annulled by subsequent Treaties. and therefore the
said Joint Resolution must be held to have expired
with said Treaties.
ID. That the said Joint Resolution was in direct
contravention of the 102d and 103d. Articles of the
Hawaiian Constitution of1S52, and was therefore void.
Sd. That the said Joint Resolution was repealed
by an Act Of the Legislature of 1854, which imposed
a penalty for the ofense charged in said indictment
different from that created by said Joint Resolution.
4th. That the said Joint Resolution of 1916 was
repealed by the Act of 9th June, 1859, which i'm
posed a penalty for the offense charged in said in
dictment, different from, and inconsistent with that
imposed by the said Joint Resolution.
The demurrer was then argued at great length by
Messrs. Bates and Harris for the prosecution, and
Mr.. Montgomery for the defendant. Mr.. Blair, who
was engaged for the defendants in three other similar
cases against james Rowland, and Jacob Markle
and Daniel Markle, was requested to state his views,
which he did, in support of the demurrer after
which the Court took time to consider, and the
Jury were allowed to leave until the next morning
On the following morning, the Court delivered its
decision, overruling the first three grounds of de-
murrer, but sustaining the fourth.-The demurrer
was therefore sustained. The other cases alluded to
being of a precisely similar nature. Mr.. Bates
moved to enter q noHe prosequi in each case, which
the Court granted.
The King vs.. Esena and .ftun, (Chinamen)-
Charged with Burglary and Larceny, for breaking
and entering the dwelling house of Samuel Isaacs,
with intent to commit larceny. The property stolen
was valued at one hundred dollars. The Jury after
an absence of less than an hour found the prisoner
Esena guilty, but returned a verdict of not guilty
for Atun. Esena was sentenced to Imprisonment at
hard labor for three years and a fine of ten dollars,
Atun was discharged.
A. b. Bates for the Prosecution.
J. d. Blair & L. Lee for the Prisoner.
The King vs.. Chong tChinaman.) - Charged
with receiving the above property but it appear
ing from the evidence that the prisoner kept a lodg-
ing house where Esena resided and that he received
q pair Of pants in payment Of a months rent. but
made no c~oncealment of it, having himself discover
ed the property to the policeman, the jury after an
absence Of an hour, returned n verdict Of not
gully.
A. b. Bates for the Prosecution.
j. ID. Blair for the prisoner
James Howiand vs. Sami. Jaco6s--Assumpsit-
This was an action brought at the April term Of the
Supreme Court to recover the amount Of sundry
Z and labor said to have been performed by the
p16f6fiG for the defendant The Jury alter having
the evidence. rendered . verdict for the plnin-
tdk a the sum Of -, from which verdict the
dAk13sns moved for . new trial on the ground that
ftseez,ry 70 evidence and the lax, and ON the
2 &3<4 ATS 4zEExAtf<4