The Hawaiian gazette., 1891-05-19

the acting under it for long course
or years may well give an interpreta-
ton to that obscure meaning, and
reduce that uncertainty TO fixed
rule, 2UtimuS legiS iRferpres e0RSustWd0
which is sometimes termed eOatempo-
rdRsg ezpositio" lord Brougham in
Magistrates OF Dunbar VS.. Duchess
of Roxburghe, 3 CT. * Fin. 2SS.
The oath in common use IN the
courts OF this Kingdom is the one
meant by all OF our statutes which
refer TO judicial oaths, and is there
by, both by the courts and the sta
tutes, recognized as legal oath.
To the defendants contention
that the allegation of the Indictment
that the oath was then and there
required by law, and the requiring
of 1t was then and there authorized
by law" being stated conjunctiyely
instead OF disjunctively as in the
statute, is bad unless the statutes
show an express mandate TO the JUS
tee in question to administer the
oath. we answer that the point is i'm
material; it is sufficient if, consist
emily with the statute, the oath is
found to be required by law, or the
requiring of it authorized by law.
We therefore override the first
ground Of the demurrer.
The second ground is: 1T does not
appear from said indictment that the
facts or allegations TO which, as said
indictment charges, this defendant
falsely swore, as therein set forth,
were material TO the issue then
pending, as described in said indict-
ment."
The law in this regard is that the
statements alleged TO have been
falsely sworn and thereby constitut-
ing the crime Of perjury must be
alleged to be material TO the issue in
which they were given, or they must
appear to be material from the ma
ture OF their information. &" I do not
mean that the particular fact sworn
to must be Immediately material TO
the issue, but that il must have such
a direct and immediate connection
with material fact as to give weight
TO the testimony on that point"
/ Estate '. Hathaway, , n. x Nee. lis;
10 Am. Dec. $50; 4 Grim. Def. 375.)
The indictment alleges that it was
9 material fact TO be proved that
said Ah Wal on, to-wit, the 18th day
OF July. 1890, and in the night time
of SAID day, did unlawfully, wilfully
and maliciously set fire TO and burn
the dwelling house Of one Ahung,
situate in Honolulu aforesaid, which
said dwelling house was then and
there occupied by and had as its in
mates said Ahung and others" If
this charge had been proved against
All Wal it would have convicted him
of arson in the first degree. The in
dictment against Angee charges that
IN the examination he stated under
oath that 4" he, said Angee, lives N q
house adjoining said Ahung. That
he, said Angee, was at home on the
night of July 18th, 1890; that he,
said Angee, saw q fire and ran out;
that he, said Angee, saw said All
/ Wal standing at the makai Eva gate;
that the house on fire was the one
nearest to that gate and was Ahung's
house; that the blaze was underneath
/ the house; that when All Wal saw
/ him, said Angee, said All Wal ran;
I that the said Angee cried out, All
Wal, you set the house On fire. that
the said All Wal then threw a kero-
sene bottle at him, said Angee, which
said bottle hit against the wall and
broke; that said All Wal tried to
open the said gate and run out, but
he, said Angee, ran and seized said
An Wal by said All Wai's side; that
An Wal then struck him, said Angee,
with a knife and knocked him, said
Angee, down, and then he, said All
Wal, escaped. That said house was
/ then and there occupied by said
Aiming and others" and makes the
following assignments OF perjury
+" Whereas II truth and in fact
the said All Wal was not on the
night OF said July 2Sth, 1890, stand
ing at said makai Eva gate; that
said All Wal did not throw a kero-
sene bottle at said Angee; that said
Angee did not seize said All Wal
by his, said All Wai's, side; that
said Al Wal did not strike said
Angee with a knife or otherwise,
nor did said Al Wal knock said
Angee down, nor did said All Wal
run away from said premises. And,
whereas, in truth and IN fact, said All
Wal was not on said premises at ali
during the night Of said July 18th,
or morning Of July 18th aforesaid,
and that said All Wal did not set
fire 70 said dwelling house Of Ahung
as aforesaid, all of which the said
Angee then and there well knew"
The sworn statement charged to
be false in Ahung's Indictment and
upon which perjury IS assigned,
agrees substantially with this.
1t Is clear to US that the allega-
tions OF the evidence Of defendants
upon which perjury IS assigned, IN
each indictment, contain statements
which are pertinent 10 the issue re-
cited, 1. C., that it was material