The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1886-08-31
Supreme Court OF the Hawaiian Islands
July Term. 1856.
EKEKELA MALAN1, ET AL. VS.. Pun, Er AL.
JAMES r. HoLT, il. VS.. JoHS BRoDrE.
ODin;oR Of CHER Justice JUDD.

Opinion of CHIEF Justice JUDD.
In each of the above entitled cases a motion is
made for new trial by the respective defendants
on the general ground of misconduct of the jury.
The first named case was tried on the 18th and
18th of July and resulted verdict for plaintiff
which was rendered at 1l50 D. N. on the 14th
The case of Holt Brodie began in the afternoon
of the 18th and continued till noon of the 18th
July.
On both of these cases three of the Jurors were
the same, TO wit Jim Kukona, j. Kapou and
Wahia.
BY the afidavits on file in both cases find that
when the Holt and Brodie case was concluded one
Bill Perry, a 4" COW boy - of Hollis who had been
witness IN his case, applied TO his employer just
after the verdict was rendered for some money to
bus hsh for dinner and for liquor for himself
and other witnesses who were then staying at Viii
liam Hollis, plaintiffs brother. Money was gwen
to buy fish and gin provided. The Juryman
j. Kapou standing about the Court House said he
was hungry and Perry invited him and several
other Jurors to come along with him and get some
thing TO eat. They went TO William Hollis house
and there had dinner of fish, poi and gin. There
were present of the Holt and Brodie jury, Jim.
Kukona. Wahia, Elama, Hulimoko, and j. Kapau,
and of the Ekekela and Publ case, the jurors J.
Kapou, Jim. Kukona and Wahia already named,
Nahoolewa. Chas. Lewis Aimoo and also Kiliona
of the panel but not drawn on either case.
The afidavits fail to diclose anything to connect
the successful plaintiffs IN either case with this
refreshment which seems TO have been SO eagerly
accepted by the jurors.
10 Dy SelLlllB dhlOo VGTOlCI IOI
accepting refreshments given by witness in the
case, without connecting them with the transac-
ton, would be stretch of authority blythe Court
which is not warranted by the law
It is matter of constant regret to the Court
that the Hawaiian panel of jurors are mainly
composed of men of such circumstances of life
that the honorariun of 81 per day and 81 for each
verdict rendered is so important as to make them
ready to accept favors from litigants.
refer to the ease of Kalaeohekoi VS.. D. Kahanu
Haw. Rep. 4Sl, where the Court say that the
practice of treating jurors is condemned as spe-
cies of bribery-but IN that case the successful
sutton himself invited the jury to dine at his ex-
pense while they were leaving the room. In Rex
VS.. Makaweo Haw. Rep. (1SS3) the Court held
the dinners for several jurors, after they had
convicted the defendant, when asked so to do by
the jurors was not misconduct of sufficient gravity
to warrant the Court in setting aside the verdict.
/ think that jurors who have so little sense of
honor as to accept any similar favors, in connec-
ton with their duties as jurors, from any are
unfit to be selected as jurors, but the feast at
Hollis was not furnished to the jurors by the par
lies itigant with their knowledge and so is not
sufficient ground for new trial.
In the Ekekela VS.. Publ case, Kaumuloa, one of
the defendants deposes that two of the jurymen
who sat on the case had conversation in his
hearing to the effect that they knew that this case
was coming on to be tried that day. and that Ku-
heleloa remarked that the Court was an Aha
hoopai paewaewa-"a Court whose judgments are
unjust" This was, if true, no doubt, disre-
spectful remark. But counsel say that this shows
that these jurors had heard of the case, and that
they had violated their oaths the Uoiy dire to
testify truly as to their qualifications as jurors by
answering that they knew nothing of the case. |
The testimony of jurors to their competency is
not taken down, unless exception should be |
taken to the accepting or dsqualifying of Juror
But the objection was, as appears by the affidavit
known to the defendant, afiant Kaumuloa, and |
he should have informed counsel of it, and the |
juror confronted with it before he was sworn to |
try the issue.
1t is now too late.
To my mind, the most serious matter is that |
raised by the affidavit of Ching On, who deposes
that he had an ejectment case On for trial at the
July term, and on the first day of the term four of
the Hawaiian Jurymen, two OF whom whose names
ne gives but which l withhold, came to him and
said that in ejectment suits the man who had the
most money always won that the defendant in
that case had offered them $500, but if lie would
give them $500 they would decide in his favor
that he afterwards saw these four iurymen in the
defendants house, and being afraid of them,
waived jury.
If the defendant had actually bribed the jury,
it is not likely he would have consented to waive
the jury.
But, without question, bride solicited by
juror would disqualify him from sitting in any
case, if known TO the Court-even if the bride
was refused to be given by the party litigant.
But though this affidavit if supported, would show
a terribly corrupt state of mor2ls among the Ha-
waiian panel of jurors, it is not ground for new
trial after verdict for the corrupt solicitation
not made in either case now being considered.
If ground at all, it ought to upset every one of
the cases tried at this term in which these jurors
sat.
The motion for new trials are refused.
L. Thurston and j. M. Monsarrat for Publ ct al;
A. G. Smith for j. Brodie Kinney q Peterson for
both plaintiffs
Honolulu, August 6, 1886.