The Hawaiian gazette., 1891-05-19
crN1ox OF The COURT BY DOLE. ].

The defendants in these two cases
nave demurred TO indictments charg-
ing them respectively with perjury
committed as witnesses IN the exam
nation OF one All Wal upon charge
d arson before VIM. Foster, Esq,
Police Justice of Honolulu.
The grounds of demurrer are sub
srsntically identical IN both cases.
The first ground Is as follows
Defendant denies that, as mat
-er OF law. William Foster, Esq, be-
fore whom. as District and Police
Justice Of Honolulu as alleged IN
said indictment) the false swearing
u ana by this defendant. set forth
said Indictment. Is therein alleged
20 have been done and committed,
mad. az the date therein named, to-
wiz. 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-
ten5aut denies that the administra-
non OF such oath 70 this defendant,
5v said William Foster, was then
and there required or authorized by
law
This appears rather 10 be an objec-
ION 70 the legality OF the oath 10 have
been administered, than to the gen
sral authority Of the Police Justice to
administer q legal oath. 1t is denied
that the Police Justice had, at the
lne referred 10 '' any legal author
~ 70 administer TO this defend
ant such oath as Is described in
said Indictment This. we gather
from the argument OF the defendants
counsel, refers 10 q supposed form
% oath set forth IN the indictment:
but the form Of oath IS not therein
sci forth, the allegation being simply
that the witness was then and there
duly sworn by said William Foster,
District and Police Justice as afore
said. 70 tell the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth relative to the
issue. etc. The words A." duly sworn
cover the distinctive nature of the
oath Is an oath, and with the words
which follow, lie. TO tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the
ruth. make q sufficient allegation
-hat q legal oath. If such exists, was
administered in due form q Arch
boId's Grim. Pr. < PI. 1723. 4. /.
L Is further denied ~ that the ad-
ministratiOn Of such oath las de-
scribed In the indictment) 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 cur foregoing ruling that the
oath Is not described, and that the
allegation Is ii effect that It was adj
ministered N 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-
zstence Of g legal oath under which
witnesses may be sworn IN this
country. We VIII consider 1t now IN
stead Of leaving 1t 10 come up later
II the proceedings.
The defendants argument that be-
cause we have no common law
0fenses. we are therefore preelUded
from the use IN our practice Of any
common law definitions which 90 TO
make up the description Of q Grim
ma OEense. Is untenable. Many
words are necessarily used N defn-
5ng crimes which are Of 3 technical
character with meanings derived
sometimes from usage, sometimes
from the common law and some
times from Judicial decisions The
contention that We must 90 to our
statutes for the definitions Of all
words which themselves are used N
defining crimes Is simply imprac
rieable Such a requirement would
cucumber our law books with vast
stores Of for the most part unneces-
ssry definitions and would defeat
many Of our existing laws, as II would
certainly destroy the statute of per
Jury The following are few of
the many technical words to be
found n our criminal statutes and
which are not defined by legislative
enactments IN this country. C0Hrert,
ID the statute OF Embezzlement,
fL9AA-C-lc IL OAc-44ASs L-f-tDtt IL
Polygsmy, dureSs IN Extortion,
lli1lGl in Cruelty to Animals, ritHess
ii Perjury, compound, deposition and
testimony IN Obstructing and Per
verting Justice, eoyederaey IN Con-
spiracy.
The meaning of the word : oath
II the statute of Perjury Is as de
hnitely established by usage IN this
country, not 10 speak of that OF the
rest Of the civilized world from anci
ent times, as IS the meaning OF the
word = witness IN the same statute
and IN the other parts Of the Grim
nal code, or the meanings of any of
the other words above mentioned
Usage may be resorted to for the
purpose OF interpreting words of
statute where their meaning Is IN
certain. Civil Code s. 81
Where the statute, speaking on
some points, Is silent as to others,
usage may well supply the defect.