The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1869-04-10
supreme Court.


Tie April Term Of tie Supreme Court opened
On Monday tie 5th Inst. at 10 O'Clock, \. NJ,
Chief Justice Allen and Associate Justice Austin
Oh tie bench.
In Re1 IS. Use, charged with burglary, ".
Claude Jones, III. for prisoner; in RI u.s..
-NaLu and RoH, charged with gross cheat, Mc-rs.
kcawehuuaha.a and kaEiiila Tor prisoner: and
IN EeI rs. KakeoLqyu, charged with hou=cbrcak-
ing, Me--rs. kelwcAuuahaia and Kaialewai for
prisoner. tic Attorney General presented inIict-
meat- the prisoners were a~r1airned and pleaded
not guilty, and tic clg-e- were set for trial.
: variety Of civil! causes were set Tor trial next
week.
In E,r rs. Agaee Il as., who were tried and
convicted la, December Term 1T Lahaina, Maui,
fr the murder or one Kaauaeina, in which
cause q bill of exceptions was argued and a ucw
trial ordered in "a rIeial term for two Of tic
defendant, Henry ThomI-on, E-q., o? counsel
!Jr pri-Jnerz, gave notice Of a motion in arrest
u execution, On the ground that the prisoners
were not asked before the sentence. If they had
anything u -ay why sentence Of death should not
b. pronounced upon them. Tic motion was set
fr argument Oh the following day at 10 O'Clock,
4. n, o. which hour the Court was adiYurRcd.
Ilhe Court met pursuant - adjournment.
X. II. Stanley, E~l., Of counsel for pri4sners,
opened, stating that it had been the myarablc'
fIactic: 1f the Courts Of the Kingdom in carftaI
.ca=cs, derived from Common Law, to ask tie
prisJncr before sentence if he lad anything u
say Why tie sentence 81 the law should not be
pronounced upon him, and that the failure 10 ak
the auction was fatal % tie judgment, according
% the dcci-ious Of the Courts Of England and the
United States.
Tie Attorney General for the Crown argued
that the Common Law Of England wac no
authority in THE kingdom. az such; taat the
practice had arisen under a state OF things very
different from the pre-ent, that the reason and
causes Of the practice had long cel-eI to exist,
and that it was not required by any statute Of
the Kingdom.
Henry Thompson, Esq., Of counsel for the
prisoners, replied. that the practice Of the Com
mon Law in this re-pcct had been adopted by the
Courts Of the Kingdom. And as 70 tine c1nse-
gucace= Of failure 10 ak the question, it has been
regarded az fatal in the United States up to thc
present time, where the reasons and causes which
may have fret rendered it necessary in England
have never existed. tie Common Law Of England
never having there been regarded as Obligatory,
whore II wac opposed u the character Of it, in
s~,ituti.us or the circumstances Of the country.
The practice must therefore have been 20 observed
there from a conviction Of it, justice and out Of
humanity to prisoners more than out Of Difference
D the Common Law.
The Court took the motion into adyi-cmeut
until y O'Clock. \. NJ, Of the following day. At
which hour judgment was given denying the mo-
ton. Chief Justice Allen and Mr.. Justice Aus
tin both giving oIinions in substance a. follows,
viz. That tLc Common Law of England vas
no Part Of The law Of this country any farther
than i; had been adopted by express legislation
or by the decisions Of the Courts Of Record: that
accused persons a~ncieutly under the Common
Law, when tie practice first grew up, were I'M
der many disadvantage that although the
formal question wa- not asked, the record showed
that al the statutory rights Of ,hc prisoners had
been granted to them; that their counsel were
present NJ the sentence. that no suggestion j.
made that they had anything TO say. and that
substantial justice appeared 70 have been done.