The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1886-03-09
In the Supreme Court of the Hawaiian
Islands--In Banco. As of January Term
1885,
THE KING VS.. An LEE AND An Flu.
BEFORE JUDD, CD, McoUILY AND PRESTON, J. J.


Opinion Of the Court By PRESTON, j.
At the last term of the Circuit Court for the
Second Judicial Circuit held at Lahaina in
December last, the defendants were convicted
Of the offence OF gaming.
The evidence for the prosecution was to the
effect that on the 10Th of October last, H. G.
Treadway, deputy sheriff at Waikiki, entered
the defendants premises at Waikiki, under n
search warrant: that defendant, All Lee, was
lying apparently asleep in a room, and that
two stamps and book were found on the
table, and some money ($9sO5) in two draw
ers, also thirteen books under the table, and
some lottery tickets, and other lottery appar-
atus; some Of these articles were found under
the mattrass upon which All Lee was lying.
The witness, Treadway testified as to the man
ner in which the drawings were conducted.
The defendant, All Flu, was found in room
upstairs preparing to escape, and other papers
were found in this room.
All Mau testified that he purchased lottery
tickets from All Flu, one day in the last week
in October, (for one Ali) paying $685. for
them: that the money was paid TO All Flu, who
handed it to All Lee: that Alb Lee took lot
terry ticket which he handed to All Flu, who
gave it TO witness, who delivered it TO Aki
that the ticket (produced) was the lottery
ticket and it did not win: that the books, stamps
and papers produced were for use in connec-
ton with lottery.
Ak testified to giving money 10 the previous
witness to purchase lottery tickets, on October
26th, and received the ticket produced that he
took the ticket to defendant All Lee who told
him it had not drawn anything: that he never
got his money back. The books seized by
Treadway contained accounts of the gains and
losses of the lottery or bank
For the defence the defendant All Lee tes-
tilted that he did not know either of the wit
nesses, All Mau, or Ak, never saw either OF
them before hearing at the Police Court-did
not sell the ticket-never saw it before prose-
cution-neither of the witnesses, All Mau or
Aki came to him before the prosecution for
the purpose Of buying or otherwise concerning
a lottery ticket-and never had any dealings
with either of them.
All Flu, the other defendant, was called but
his evidence was not taken, as it was admitted
by the prosecution that he would testify to the
same effect as his co-defendant
The jury convicted the defendants.
The defendants excepted TO the verdict as
against the law, and being contrary to tue
evidence, and gave notice Of a motion for
new trial.
The motion and exceptions were argued on
the 10th inst, when
Ashford, c. W. contended that there was no
evidence of the sale of the lottery tickets by
the defendants: that the defendants having tes
tilted that they did not sell the tickets or have
any knowledge of the witnesses, All Mau and
Aki, il amounted to the testimony of two
against one, as the witnesses only depesed to
separate transactions on different occasions,
and that there was no evidence that any money
had been lost or won by the defendants.
The Attorney General commended that the
evidence was sufficient, and the jury having
believed the witnesses for the prosecution a
new trial should not be granted.
By THE CouRT:-Section l, of Chapter
XXXIA, of the Penal Code enacts
whoever by playing at cards or any other
game wins or loses any sum of money or thing
of value is guilty of gaming A lottery is a
game within the meaning of this Section.
If the evidence of the witnesses is believed,
IT must be the fact that these defendants won
the money paid by All Man for the ticket pro-
duced
1t is not denied that the various articles
stated by the deputy sheriff IN the rooms of
the defendants were so found.
Ii was entirely a question for the iury as to
whether they believed the defendants or the
witnesses for the prosecution, and they having
the right 10 convict, even upon the evidence Of
one witness, if they believed him, aud having
convicted the defendants, we think that accord
ing to the decisions of this Court new trial
should not be granted, and therefore override
the exceptions with costs.
Attorney General for the Crown; Ashford s.
Ashford for defendants
UonoiuIu March 2nd 1884