The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-07-09


Commonwealth VS.. Tuck 20 Pick 1856,
365.
Commonwealth vs.. Wheeler Mass.
ia.
''In the latter case it is expressly stated
by the Court that, it is perfectly clear
that nolle prosequi may be entere91 aI
the pleasure of the prosecuting o0lcer
before jury is impanelled. The reasons
for the pracUice are there stated, and they
are numerous and decisive. Nor can we
see that there are any valid objections to
it. Such mode of disposing OF an lndlct-
ment can in any way impair or affect the
rights of the accused party in any future
prosecution for the same ofense. Ihat
it Will not be resorted to caprlclously or
oppressively, so as to work any UNIQUE
hardships on defendants, is suttlclently
guarded against by intrustlng the exercise
of the power to the sound dlscretlon Oh
an officer of the Government, whose
function it is to watch over ana ulrecG
the course of criminal prosecutions, ana
who can have no motive to use the au-
thority vested in him in manner lncon-
sistent with due regard to the rlghts
and interests of all parties.
Commonwealth VS.. Smith SO Mass. 10. |
Cockburn, G. j. "It is the undou6ted
right and power of the Attorney Cen
eral. as the representative of the Crown
| in matters of criminal law, to enter a
nolle prosequi, AM thereby at once TO
stav proceedings in criminal suit OF IN
formation, and no instance has eeen
cited, nor can any be found, In Whlcn
the Court, after nolle prosequl had
been entered by the Attorney General,
has taken upon itself to direct such pro-
ceedlngs to be prosecuted. Even II this
Court should do so, there is nothing to
prevent the Attorney General from en-
tering a nolle prosequi totes QUOTES.
at is not for this Court to create
precedent of this sort where none before
existed-a precedent contrary to the I'M
derstanding of the profession-and one
that would be fraught with public mis-
chief. Under ordinary circumstances,
no doubt the Attorney General would
act wisely in calling the prosecutors be-
fore him before he proceeded to enter
nolle prosequi, but there may be partl-
cuIar cases in which from the knowledge
of the facts, or the particular nature OF
the charge, the Attorney General might
think it necessary to enter nolle prose-
qui without adopting that course. 1t can
no. he contended for one moment that
, there can have been any abuse exercised,
: by one whose functions are OF such highly
= responsible character; but if there had
= been-and | only put it Alphabetically
the remedy is not by an application TO
] this Court to interfere by the exercise OF
its undoubted power and provocative, but
. to hold him responsible before the Hlgh
g Court of Parliament. l am not at all
. disposed to establish a precedent in such
: case, and | think therefore there
should be no rule"
Crompton, J. I am of the same
= opinion. think we have no power to
= do what is now asked of us, and [ think
y we ought not to interfere with the un-
- doubted power of the Crown vested in
:, the Attorney General. There is nothing
: in the present case to take it out OF the
y general rule / think the Attorney Gen
eral can interfere in my public prosecu-
h ton whenever he pleases, and all the
= cases referred to are clearly distinguish
y able from such one as this.
Blackburn, J. am of the same opin-
o ion. This particular branch or the pre-
- rogative is entrusted to the Attorney
y General who on his own responsibility
determines whether the prosecution
I shall 60 on or not.
; "Mellor, j., concurred."
;, Reg. VS.. Allen, Cox G. G. 122.
J, ''The following is related Of Sir John
= Holt, Chief Justice of the K. B., in the
- reigns of William and Anne. There
y were some persons in London who pre-
:, tended to possess the power of foretell-
ing future events, and who were called
:, the French prophets. Holt having upon
y occasion committed one of these to
! prison, a disciple of his came to the
! Chief Justices house and desired to see
- him.
6 On being admitted, he said 4 come
y from the Lord, who babe me desire thee
. to grant nolle prosequi for John Atkins,
! his servant, whom thou hast thrown
:. into prison. Thou art a false prophet
and lying knave, returned the Chief
! Justice. If the Lord had sent thee il
- - would have been to the Attorney Gen
= eral; for the Lord knoweth that it is not
> in my power to grant nolle prosequi.'
. Gin People VS.. Mcleod, l Hill 405
= note f."
= "And, without prejudice to any such
4 fresh prosecution, the Attorney for the
" State may mol. pros. that is discontinue
q an Indictment, at any time after it is
= found, previous to the moment when,
o the defendant having pleaded, that is,
= made answer to it, traverse jury is I'M
q panelled and sworn to try the cause"
y Bishop Or. Law sec. 7, 1856.
= GA nolle prosequi is the voluntary
# withdrawal by the prosecuting authority
. of present proceedings on a particular
bill, and a common law is prerogative
- incident to the sovereign. 1t may at
y common law be entered at any time
6 before judgment, and the practice is
o usual during trial or after conviction to
= enter it upon Objectionable counts, or
+ parts of counts, SO as to confne the YER
~ dict to those which are good, Courts
= have, it is true, frequently held that the
, p erogative is one subject to their con-
troll, while the case is on trial, and that
+ the Attorney General has no right, after
' the jury is impanelled and witnesses
called to withdraw the case without
> their sanction"
= Wharton Or. Pr. & Pl.
cit is scarcely necessary for the Court
to disclaim all pretensions to such a
jurisdiction. An extravaganza, SO absurd
q and excessive, could not have been en-
tertained for a moment. The province
of the Court is, solely to decide on the
! rights of individuals, not enquire how
+ the executive or executive officers per-
form duties in which they have a dis
erection. Investigations in their nature
f political, or which are by the Constitu-
ton and laws submitted to the execu-
!, tive can never be made in this Court "
Marborv Madison 1 Cropob 170