The Hawaiian gazette., 1884-01-23

The prisoner was found guilty at the November
term OF the Circuit Court for the third judicial
Circuit, Of the crime Of robbery in the second
degree.
His counsel nov moves the Supreme Court for a
new trial on three grounds:
First That the. verdict was contrary to the
evidence
part Of the Jury.
Third That juror was disqualified
The inst ground was abandoned AZ the argument.
The alleged misconduct Of the Jury is supported
by afidGvits Of the iuryman LuliAa, substantially
rectinc that shortly after they had rendered their
verdict i've Of the Jury went to q Chinese restau-
rant near by and took dinner; after dinner the
afilnt vas about paying for his meal, when Jury
man, kRnehaku said ~DOa't YOU pay, let the Chi.
ulman whom we have indicated pay meaning
the prosecuting witness who had been robbed
The afiiant replied that thIs was improper, and
paid for his own dinner.
David Huakimoa says, be was not one of the
] ig-y, but lie writing in the restaurant when
I some Of the lurymen came into the dining room
and one ut them, Walpuiani called TO the cook tC
serve them with dinner. The cook asked, How
many are there of you:H the juryman answered
/ - SIX Of u.s. He then asked, Who is 10 pay?'
/ the iCryman replied:
/ F.The QOkAla Chiaaman who was robbed will pay
| because be Is cleared and We have convicted the
native Another Chinanan standing BY said, 'tha
Is all right, and they were served and the China.
man who had been robbed handed the restaurant
keeper Sl5o. The affidavit of the last afiant,
wife Is to the same effect All Wi, Chiuaman. de
poses that he was employed in the Chinese restau
rant and that seven llrymsn came TO the restau
rant and asked for dinner. I asked who was {,
paw and thew said the Chinarnar from Ookala VIII,
vas robbed, and he did pay. Afterwards one o
the IuTyneu came and paid me twenty five cent
, saying that be did not want the Chinaman to pa,
for him,
Eaushaku swears to a counter affidavit and saws
he was one Of the iurymen who tried Makave,
and went to tic restaurant in question, dined ans
paid for his own meal: that he did say that tn
z Chinaulan Who had been robbed ought to pay TO
the dinner Of the l1rymeu, but that Luhiau Saig
that II vas improper, and he and Luhiau paid 70
their meals themselves, and that the said prosecu
ting witness did not, before or after the trial O
any time offer TO pay, nor did be ever pay or offe
to pay any mOuey account of afhant at the sais
restaurant. That his statement that the China
| man ought 10 paw made only to Luhiau.
! Maip1iiali svears that he went to the restau
rant. dlned and paid for his meal himself and tina
4 he vas not invited by the Chinaman to dine at hi
expense, and never spoke to him before or afte
/ the trial.
The statement vas undoubtedly made BY Kane
haiku at the restaurant that the prosecuting wit
ness II the case OF the defendant ought to paw TO
their dinner Bot he and waip1ilani whom til
atlantis the part of the defendant especially i'm
plicate. eTuphat;cally deny that they allowed hin
10 pay for their meals, or that he offered so to d.
and say that they paid for their meals themselves
Bot the Gfhcayits of Hoakimoa and wife and tn
restaurant hand, are uncoutradicted that the pros
l ec1tine witness in the case did pay for certain
| OtLcL IAEOEs \ proper sense OF mono
should have prevented the Jurors accepting thi
favor, and if it had been seasonably brought to tn
4 notice of the Court it would have subjected then
10 reprIcaud, bgtit does not seem to rs TO be mis-
condlct Of sufficient gravity to vitiate the verdict
| The though. no doubt originated IN the iuro
| vino called oct that the ChInzman ought to trea
| the jury TO dinner and the ignorant Chinaman NJ
| doubt thought he ought to do 50 and did pay 70
| -oSzarof them.
The case Of kAiaeokek0i " KAhanu lth Hzv. X
/ 30 Is cited where the Coars ordered a new trial
In t1st case the intoxicati0n of juror was s1iii
| Gent upon which to set aside the verdict but th
Court could not PIT oct Of sight the gross ofens
against the dignity and purity of jury trials by tn
successful defendauts inviting the whole jury be
fore they had left the court room 10 dine at his e1
| peIse-
As regards the third point The atidzvits shov
| that one Bolabols Who vas drawn on the jury il
this case lad expressed opinion before the tina
| ulfavorzble 70 the prisoner, saying that be hAS
/ led astray his the Atlantis foster child and VA
living With ksE. The prisoner makes affidavit tina
he vas ignorant Of this statement of the Juror o.
| that he vas prei1diced against him; but The prs
o1cE does Tot say vhether the fact that he had les
ast-Sy the jurors foster daughter and vas Twin,
With her vas true or not. Il Is evident that th,
caEse Of hostility must. II true, have been know
to the prisoner and II was his duty to have chal
eeaSed the juror on that ground before he va,
/ sworn
New trial refused.
". A, Whiting, Dep1ty Attorney General fo- th.
/ C-oEu. W. A kinney and G. Brown for defendant
Honolulu. January 18th, 1854.