The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-05-14

W pToOi, IL Is u.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY DOLE, J.
The defendants in these two cases
have demurred to indictments charg-
ing them respectively with perjury
committed as witnesses in the exam
ination of one All Wal upon a charge
of arson before VIM. Foster, Esq,
Police Justice of Honolulu.
The grounds of demurrer are sub
stantically identical in both cases.
The first ground is as follows:-
Defendant denies that, as mat
ter of law, William Foster, Esq, be-
fore whom, as District and Police
Justice of Honolulu as (alleged in
said indictment) the false swearing
of and by this defendant, set forth
said indictment, is therein alleged
to have been done and committed,
had, at the date therein named, to-
wit, the fifth day of August, 1890,
any legal authority to administer to
this defendant such oath as is de-
scribed in such Indictment; and de-
PENDANT denies that the administra-
ton of such oath to this defendant,
by said William Foster, was then
and there required or authorized by
law"
This appears rather to be an objec-
ton to the legality of the oath to have
been administered, than to the gen.
eral authority of the Police Justice to
administer legal oath. 1t is denied
that the Police Justice had, at the
time referred to "any legal author
ity to administer to this defend
ant such oath as is described in
said Indictment" This, We gather
from the argument of the defendants
counsel, refers to supposed form
of oath set forth in the indictment;
but the form of oath is not therein
set forth, the allegation being simply
that the witness twas then and there
duly sworn by said William Foster,
District and Police Justice as afore-
said, to tell the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth relative to the
issue, etc. The words "duly sworn "
cover the distinctive nature of the
oath as an oath, and with the words
which follow, i.e, to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the
TRUTH" make sufficient allegation
that legal oath, if such exists, was
administered in due form. e Arch
bold's Grim. Pr. & Pl. 1923, n. il
It is further denied that the adj
ministration of such oath las de-
scribed in the indictmenD to this
defendant by said William Foster,
was then and there required or au-
thorized by law"
We feel that this point is also met
by our foregoing ruling that the
oath is not described, and that the
allegation is in effect that it was adj
ministered in due form; but mas.
much as the defendants counsel has
raised under this part of the demur-
rer the whole question as to the ex.
istence of legal oath under which
witnesses may be sworn in this
country, we will consider it now in.
stead of leaving it to come up later
in the proceedings.
The defendants argument that be-
cause we have no common law
offenses, we are therefore precluded
from the use in our practice of any
common law definitions which 90 tc
make up the description of Grim
inal offense, is untenable. Many
words are necessarily used in defn
ing crimes which are of a technica
character with meanings derived
sometimes from usage, sometimes
from the common law and some
times from judicial decisions. The
contention that we must go to oul
statutes for the definitions of al
words which themselves are used ii
defining crimes is simply imprac
ticable. Such a requirement would
cucumber our law books with vas
stores of for the most part unneces
sary definitions and would defea
many of our existing laws, as it woult
certainly destroy the statute of per
jury. The following are a few O
the many technical words to b
found in our criminal statutes an,
which are not defined by legislativ
enactments in this country. ConUer
in the statute of Embezzlemen
homicide in Duelling, Cohabit i
Polygamy, duress in Extortiol
animal in Cruelty to Animals, sottne
in Perjury, compound, deposition an
testimony in Obstructing and Pc
verting Justice, coyederacy in Coz
spiracy.
! The meaning of the word oath