The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1872-11-02
Supreme Court.
opinion.

Supreme Court.
An unusually busy and laborious term comes to
an end to-day. There is a possibility that a special
term may be called, to complete business that has
been deferred. This is not the first occasion when it
has been made apparent that the law limiting the
term of Court is a positive detriment to public justice,
and should be repealed.
The case of Frank ingram, indicted for malicious
mischief, was on Monday submitted to a jury, who
brought in a verdict of guilty in the second degree.
The ofense charged was in tampering with the fasten-
ings of the ship Georges, laying ut anchor IN this
harbor. Messrs. Jones and Judd, counsel for the
accused, gave notice of motion for a new trial Mon
day afternoon, an opium smuggling case was being
tried before a jury, when, at about twenty minutes
past four, owing to much irregular and disputatious
proceeding of counsel for the defense (Mr- c. c.
IIarris) the Court Judge Hartwell) summarily
adjourned proceedings until the next morning.
On the opening the Court, Tuesday morning,
Judge Hartwell said, 'Before the business COM
mences l wish TO refer to the occurrences which took
place in Court yesterday 10 the proceedings of this
case. | confess to n feeling of great annoyance
which led me to adjourn the Court as | did, rather
than to comment upon the matter at the time and to
run the risk perhaps of doing an injustice to those
co~cerned But | feel that | cannot let it pass,
without giving the sentiment of the Court in regard
TO the conduct of counsel appearing before them.
Every member of the bar knows what is proper, and
consistent with the dignity of helCourt, and | need
not refer in detail to what is expected of them in the
conduct of business before the Court. l am fully
aware that in the earnestness of professional debate,
expressions are often made which are not TO be taken
in their full meaning, which are forgotten inmedi-
ately and perhaps may be regarded as having been
used in a Pickwickian sense. 1t is inevitable that in
the heat of professional discussion, words may be
occasionally used and conduct INDUCED in not per-
haps altogether appropriate without intending its
full meaning. The Court understands this and will
be reasonable in such matters.
=" 1t is not easy to imagine circumstances in which
a digniied manner and gentlemanly courtesy are
more fitting than in a Court of law, and among
those who conduct its proceedings. And this Court
intends to treat with equal courtesy all its members,
to respectfully listen to and carefully consider all
that any one of them wish to say in the due prose
cution of business before it, and claims of them
when they appear before 1t that respect which is due
to it as u Court of law.
'The conduct of counsel in rejecting in an in
formal and underhanded way before the jury upon
rulings of the Court OH points of law, no matter
how distasteful such rulings may be, cannot be
regarded as respectful to the Court. L am so con-
scious of liability to err in h sty decisions of this kind
that such conduct does not fail TO cause me extreme
annoyance. But counsel understand that they have
the fullest privileges of exception in due form to
rulings of the Court, and they are expected to avail
themselves of this right Of exception SO far Us Cir
cumstances may demand.
The ordinary rules of debate which have OBJ
tanned in practice will be enforced. L understand
in the discussion of points of law, that the one
making the point shall open. and after the reply he
shall have the right to close; this will be observed
in this Court ia such cases.
w hOb Nl1i III tulo oSl W OlAAAbSh
personally upon the conduct of any one. but
trust that these remarks will prove sufficient under
the circumstances, and that no necessity will arise
hereafter Tor IA more ~peremptory expression OF the
opinion of the Court.
I'VE demand of counsel appearing before us
that respectful manner proper in IL Conrtoi justice,
in accordance with these views. and shall IN the
future strictly enforce the observance oil the rules OIL
etiquette consistent Herewith. The case may go on
MIR. c. C. Harris May it please your Honor
if i said anything rejecting upon Your Honor's
ruling L did not intend IL; IN fact, 1t suited as e5
dcIy. your Honor"
Judge Hartwell-" l did not refer 10 any one in
person. felt called upon to say what did from
the occurrence Of yesterday"
In the opium smuggling case, on Tuesday. the
jury returned a verdict of not guilty. On Wednes
day, counsel for Andreas Camarcho (Messrs. Jones
and Harris,) argued a motion Tor a new trial, on the
ground that according to the principles OF common
law, and of Hawaiian Constitutions and laws. the
verdict of guilty must be unanimous, in order to be
conclusive. The Attorney General replied, and the
motion was submitted for the decision OF the Court
On Thursday morning, Chief Justice Allen de-
livered the opinion of the Court, overruling the
motion for a new trial, on the grounds submItted
Justices Hartwell and Widemann each gave their
opinions separately. and the former In writing, con
curing fully with that pronounced by the Chlel
Justice-the whole being a decisive ruling OF the
Court to the efec. that a verdict by nine Jurors IN
any case, either civil or criminal must be received
in law.
A. NJ. Kahalewai. indicted for the murder Of Ka.
a~iakawaha on the goth inst, was arralgned, and
pleaded not guilty. Owing TO representations OF
his counsel, CMr. {. c. Harris) that he was not pre-
pared to go to trial, the case was ordered to stand
over until the January term. unless a special term
shall in the mean time be called.
Frank ingram, found guilty of malicious injury
in the third degree, was sentenced to Imprisonment
at hard labor for a term of three months, and to pay
costs, $50.
Kawika, who pleaded guilty to perjury in the
Bartlett Saloon liquor selling case, was brought up
for sentence, when the Attorney General briefly
stated the facts in the case, and said that he
had done everything in his power to have the en-
ployee of Kawika, Through whose influence he
believed the perjury was committed) committed for
trial before this Court for subornation of perjury,
but that the Police Magistrate had seen fit to dis
charge the complaint. This fact placed him (the
Attorney GENERALLY in a very peculiar and unpleasant
position as prosecuting officer, and lac could only
leave the question of the amount of punishment,
under all the circumstances, to the consideration OF
the Court. W. c. Jones, Esq, counsel for hawlka,
also alluded TO the circumstances under which 1t was
alleged the crime was committed, and urged the facts
as constituting grounds for mercy in passing sentence.
The Court then proceeded to sentence kaTika to one
years Imprisonment at hard labor.
Several decisions were given on Friday, and a
motion for a new trial was argued in the matter OF
the estate of Nakuapa. This morning another mo-
ton for a new trial will be argued in the case Of
AndreaS Camarcho.