The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-10-30

The defendant was convicted Of
larceny in the third degree, at the
Circuit Court of the Fourth Circuit
A prosecution against himself was
being conducted in the Police Court
of Lihue, Kauai, in which two search
warrants, which had been served and
returned to the Court, had been pro-
duced. As the Police Justice rose
to take the case under advisement,
the warrants were missed, and, on
defendant being charged with tax
ing them, he denied knowledge of
them, and they were found by the
sheriff on his person and taken from
him.
The Indictment in the Circuit
Court against him, described the
property alleged to be stolen, as that
of IS. W. Wilcox, Sheriff of the Isl
and of Kauai" and on motion to
quash the Indictment on the ground
that the warrants were not the prop
erty of the sheriff, but of the Police
Justice, the Indictment was amended
on the motion of the Deputy Attor-
ney-General, so as to read that the
subject of the larceny was the prop
erty of the Sheriff and the Police
Justice.
The Court was asked, on the con-
clusion of the evidence, to instruct
the jury to acquit the defendant, on
the ground:
~ There is no certain evidence
whose the property was.
~ And no value of the warrants
had been shown.
81 No evidence of intent had been
shown.
This motion was overruled and ex-
cepted to, and on the rendition of
the verdict of guilty of larceny in
the third degree, exception to the
verdict was taken and motions for
new trial and in arrest of Judgment
were made to this Court.
BY THE CoURT:-The search war
rants could not well be, as alleged in
the indictment, the property of both
the Sheriff and the Police Justice.
1t is true that no direct evidence
was introduced, to show whose prop
erty they mere, but the documents
were produced, and an inspection of
them indicates that they were " orig-
inal documents of a Court" This
would be a sufficient description in
an indictment, without an allegation
of property in any person, by the
authority of Section "a of the "Act
to regulate the practice and proceed
ure in criminal cases." page 345,
Compiled Laws.
The value of the property alleged
to be stolen, is also unnecessary to
be proven in this case, and unneces-
sary to be alleged in the indictment.
Section s of Chapter XLVI. of the
Penal Code on larceny, enumerates
among writings of value" which
may be the subject of larceny writ
or process" And Section 8, which
declares that where no one can be
benefited by writing, and no one
has any interest in it, or depending
upon it, or can be subject to liability
by its passing into other hands or
being destroyed, it is not subject
Of larceny" must refer to other writ
ings, as well as those enumerated in
Section s, and must be read in con-
nection with Section 10, which de-
elares that the "Value of a writing is
not necessarily to be considered to
be the amount expressed or imported |
BY the writing itself, but should be
determined by its Importance, ma
5eriality and availability as affecting
public or individual interests" This
means that the writing may have |
value or utility, and be the subject |
IF larceny if it is important or mate
,ial to some public or individual in
5erest, and is available for that pur-
pose, though no money value could
De placed upon it. We are of opin-
on that the search warrants were of
his character, and that the instruc-
ion of the Court in this respect was
correct.
But our Code distinguishes four
degrees of larceny. The first degree
s where the offence is committed in
. Custom House, Court House, ETC.,
,tc., and is committed in the night
lime to the value of 500 or more.
The second degree is such larceny
o the amount of $25 or more, and
ess than 500, or when the same is
committed in the day time to the
mount of 500 or more.
Clearly, if this larceny had been
:harged in the Indictment to have
,een committed in the Court House,
s it was, and the warrants were of
he value of 500, it would be larceny
n the second degree.
Larceny in the day time to the
mount of more than S. or less than
100, or the larceny not described in
st and I'd division of the Section to
he amount of SO or more, and less
han 500, is larceny in the third de-
rec.
ALI larceny to an amount less than
D, and all other larceny not being in
nc Of the preceding degrees, is such in
he fourth degree.
No pecuniary value being placed
pom the search warrants by the eYi-
.ence, larceny of them is in the
ourth degree, as being larceny not
D one of the preceding degrees.
For this reason, we find that the
efendant was improperly convicted
I larceny IN the third degree, and
ronand the caco 70 H.