The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-04-02
In the Supreme Court of the Ha-
waiian Islands-In Bauco. Spe-
cial Term, March, 1889.
THE KING VS.. YoK Ian.

BEFORE JUDD CD, M'CULIY, PRESTON, BECKER
TON AND DOLE, u.
Opinion Of the Court by Preston, j.
The defendant was charged before
the Police Justice of Honolulu on the
seventh day of December last with
the offense of "being in unlawful
possession of opium or preparation
thereof on December 6th,n and to
which charge the defendant plead
"guilty,n and he was thereupon SEN
fenced to pay fine of sixty dollars
and costs, and to be imprisoned at
hard labor for thirty days.
Another Chinaman Jung Ing who
was arrested at the same time plead
not guilty, and a nOlle prOSequi was
entered by him, and he was dis
charged.
On the following day Mr.. Magoon,
on behalf of the defendant, applied to
the Police Justice to have the judg-
ment set aside and the case reheard,
on gruonds mentioned in an affidavit
filed Herewith.
The Police Justice refused the appli-
cation, and the defendant appealed
from the judgment in the original
case to this Court.
The appeal was called up on the
18th January, and counsel for defend
ant then moved "That the defendant
be allowed to withdraw his plea of
guilty and to substitute plea of not
guilty therefor, and to stand his trial
on the said Charge
The Court (Mr. Justice Bickerton
presiding) overruled the motion.
Cousel for the defendant then asked
for a mitigation of the punishment,
which the Court refused.
The defendant then excepted to the
decision of the Court overruling the
motion for leave to withdraw his plea
of guilty.
The exceptions were. argued on the
eleventh instant.
thought the Police Justice was wrong
in refusing the application for re-
hearing of the case he should have
appealed from that decision, and not
from the judgment in the case.
On this ground alone we think the
exceptions should be overruled.
The defendants counsel having
strenuOusly contended that the de-
PENDANT, on the facts appearing in the
affidavits filed in the Police Court,
and which he alleges show great fraud
and corruption, was entitled to have
his application granted, such affi-
davits being uncontradicted must be
taken as true, we have read the aft
davits and will express our opinion
upon the subject.
The affidavit of Aug eau Jung Ing)
was made after the taking of the APP
peal in the Police Court. 1t is not
entitled in any Court was irregularly
filed in the Police Court, and cannot
be considered.
The defendant in his affidavit, says
"he was arrested in Honolulu at
about seven o'clock P. NJ. on the 9Th
December, 1888, on the charge of
having opium unlawfulIy in his pos
session, together with Aug eau. That
he has not been in this country very
long, and does not speak or under
stand the native or English lam
guage.n
The affidavit, after stating a con-
yersatiOn between the defendant and
Aug eau, wherein it was arranged
that the defendant should plead guilty
in order that Aug eau might have a
chance of being discharged, states:
+" That just before the above cOnversa-
ton with said Aug eau deponent was
asked by one of the policemen who
arrested him, whose name is unknown
to depOnent, but whom deponent can
identify, to pay him ten dollars, and
that deponent would be discharged.
That deponent took from his pocket
ten dollars in u. S. gold coin, and the
said policeman took it rather forcibly
from depOnent, who was rather re-
luctant to part with his money; but,
as the said policeman said that he
(deponent) would get off, depenent |
did not further object to the taking of |
the money. That the case came on
for hearing the seventh instant. and |
deponent relying upon and believing |
the statements of said policeman to |
that deponent would be |
from said charge, or that |
at most he would only receive q
money fine with three or four days at |
most imprisonment, did not employ |
counsel for his defense.n
In no part of the affidavit does the |
defendant affirm his innocence of the
CIdl &c, IIGlILitI uOtS Ic dlltSG UudU !
the policeman induced him to plead |
guilty, but, on the contrary, he was
to be discharged entirely on payment !
Of the alleged bride.
The Court cannot refrain from eX- |
pressing its surprise that a practitioner |
Of the Court should prepare and allow |
his client to swear to an affidavit in
one part of which the deponent states
that he does not speak or understand !
the English or native language; and |
part details an offer made |
by policeman Ia native) on payment |
of ten dollars to discharge him, or |
procure his discharge.
Even suppOsing all such allegations |
were true, there was no reason to |
grant the defendants motion.
The exceptions are overruled, with |
costs.
j. A. Magoon, for defendant; A. P. |
Peterson, Deputy Attorney-GeneraI,
for the Crown.
Honolulu, March 10, 1889.