The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-10-06
THE panel or JURORS.
THE CHALLENGE or THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL ARGUED BEFORE
THE FULL COURT.

In the Supreme Court this morn
ing the challenge intcrposed by the
Attorney-Generol against the panel
of jurors for the October term was
argued before Chief Justice Judd,
Justices McCully, Preston, BECKER
ton, and Dole. There was full at
tendance of members of the bar.
Acknowledgement Ashford said
that he had interposed 4 challenge
to the jury panel, the objection be-
ing that that it had not been drawn
by the officer designated by the sta
tute. BY an Act passed August 81,
1888, by the Legislature, Chapter
81, section says that certain duties
heretofore performed by the Gov
errors Of drawing jurors has been
transferred to the Chief Clerk of the
Supreme Court The list of jurors
was not signed by Mr.. w. Foster,
Clerk of the Supreme Court, but by
Mr.. Henry Smith, Deputy Clerk.
1t is also signed by the Chief JUS
tlce as Judge Of Court of Record.
The Legislature, in passing this sta
tute, imposed on particular officer
the duty of getting list of names.
This discretion used by that officer
would secure jury of intelligence
to render an unbiased verdict. 1t
had been said there was no Chief
Clerk. The Legislature put the
words "Chief Clerk" in the statute
with some intent and it would be for
the Court to inquire into it. In or
der for the jury to be accurately and
regularly drawn, it would be neces-
sary for the words "Chief Clerk" to
be eXpunged from the statute. 1t
may be argued that any work of the
Chief Clerk could be done by his
deputy. He would not argue against
that. The word "Chiet" gives a
personal limitation and identified
ton to that one person.
Mr.. A. s. lIartwcll said-The
consequences of quashing the entire
panel of jurors are so serious, in
volving an entire failure of justice
for at least six months, as far as
| jury trials 90, are SO serious, that |
do not think the Court will take such
action if this is a matter of discre-
ton with them. No objection to
the personnel of the jury is now
made, whether on the ground of
prejudice, interest or bias of
any kind. Such objections if
they exist can be made when
any jury is drawn and
such jurors would be disqualified
from sitting. This irregularity, if
it be one, does no harm, as it is not
claimed that the deputy clerk who
drew this jury was not entirely fair
and impartial. a challenge to the ar.
ray for indifferency of the Sheriff in
drawing the jury under the Englisl
statute is not allowed. The King
VS.. Edmonds, 1 B. and Old. All.
SO of irregularity in drawing ;
jury from a portion only of the
country. Com. VS.. Walsh 124
Mass. 80, Page VS.. Damon, z Met
326.
But the statute declares that al
the duties which devolve upon the
clerk may be performed by his de
putty. This means that the dutie:
Of the clerk which may be so per
formed shall be those required o,
the clerk at any time, whether by
earlier or later statutes.
If the clerk who may be regarded
as the chief clerk was in this cast
absent from the kingdom, the frs
deputy clerk, Henry Smith, was il
fact the principal or chief clerk o
the Court.
In any way of looking at the ques
ton, it is in the interests of justic,
that the panel be not quashed.
Mr.. William Foster stated he lief
the country on July 3lst before thu
Act was passed.
Mr.. w. o. Smith submitted tina
the jury had been drawn correctI,
under the statute. The argumen
of the Attorney-General agains
"Chef Clerk" was fallacious ant
unsound. There was no such of
fcer known as Chief Clerk.
Several questions were here askc,
by the different Judges after which
the Attorney-Gcneral closed TIT
argument. He referred to the fac
that w. O. Smith was the membe
of the Legislature who moved al
amendment to the statute in ques
ton to have the work "Chicf" in
serted before clerk.
The decision of the Court is re
served.
s.s.ss----s.ssIH-.-.ssElr,I.