The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-08-07
Judicial Decisions.

\ decision of the Supreme Court in
banco by Justice Bickertou. concurred
in by Chief Justice Judd and Justices
McCully and Preston, was filed in the
Clerks office on Saturday. in the case of
the King vs.. Lum Hung. Defendant
was convicted in the Police Court and
sentenced to pay fine of 500 and TO be
imprisoned without hard labor for three
days Snd TO pay costs. for violating
Sec. Of Chap. Il, Session Laws of 1886.
by having unlawful possession OF tools.
devices, implements OF tickets to play
pakapio. : banking game, in Honolulu,
this being Lum Hung's second otfenSe. +"
The defendant appealed to the Supreme
Court and at the April term. 1855. was
iound guilty and sentenced to hand labor
TWO months and fined $50, when the
cSSe WAS appealed 10 the full Court on
exceptions TO the verdict, to the refusal
OF the Court TO charge the jury as re-
Quested by defendant, and the denial OF
motion that the Jury be directed 10 re-
turn s verdict OF acQuitt2l The Court in
banCO Su>t3lnS the conviction and over
rules the exceptions, saying that objec-
ton might have been taken TO the
accusation on the ground that il was not
sufficiently specific, but it did not APP
psSr that such objection had been
brought by counsel.
Justice Dole CCucurS with the decision
with the exception OF the conclusion
stated IN = certain passage, saving he is
nos prepared 10 adopt this view nor does
he think It essential 70 the decision
o. the issue submitted TO this Court.
The conclusion diSSented irom is As
follows;
We are Of opinion that if the charge
IN the Supreme Court had been IN the
same terms Is that made in the Police
Court, the exceptions would have been
vel taken and they would have had TO
De sustained and the defendant dis
charged, because there WAS no evidence
10 show that p8pakio was 4 banking
game" i. P. Peterson for the Crown;
w E. Castle Tor the defendant.
On Saturday also WAS filed 3 bAnco
decision by Justice Preston, CON
CURED IN by Chief Justice Judd
and Justices AeCully and Bickerton, on
the motion for new trial OF behalf OF
J. H Reeves, Defendant was convicted
AZ the term OF the Third Judicial Circuit
Court 81 HilO in May lzst for cattle
stealing. Application was made to the
Circuit Court Tor : leE trisl on the
grounds that the verdict Eas against
the lSE sud the evidence and Of sur
prise Iuls motion wzs refused on the
ground that the Circuit Court could not
grant new trial in s criminal case
Exceptions 10 this ruling were argued 1t
the Isle July term sai oyerrulsd. Mr..
hzTLEeLl then moved for new trial on
the grounds aforementioned and also
OF the ground u newly discovered eyi-
denGs. Mr. Peterson, Deputy Attorney
General, took : preliminary objection 10
the motion, thst II was too late The
Court b. this decision dismisses the
motion Tor : new trial, IL brief, because
exceptions we're not taken before and
certified oy the Judge presiding II the
trial. S11 because : rule o. the Court
directs tlzt SPPlIcztI0l iCV : new trial
should u fled Nth the Clerk OF the
supreme Court within ten DAYS OF the
trlzl
Justice Dols disSent= from this deei-
son saying thsrs Is no statute q rule Of
Court tlzt limits the Supreme Court in
1alco 70 the tsl DAY rule IN motions fUT
n=~ trials from the Circuit Courts IN
criminal CzSss- He cites Hawaiian
decision where i rs held that the ten !
izE rule / suOiscs 70 the control and 1
discretion Of the Court. and nav b [
-s1F=t u prevent al injustice. That 1
being civil case - decided upon, the /
dissenting Justice h0lds that the argu-
mani n this. : criminal case, / much 4
sSr0lEs- i0E the exercise u : liberal 1
dIsEretl1l-