The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-05-14
La the Supreme Court of the Ia.
Walian Islands.


be false IN Ahung's Indictment and
upon which perjury IS assigned
agrees Substantially with this
Lie Is clear TO us that the allega-
tons Of the evidence OF defendants
upon which perjury is assigned, in
each indictment, contain statements
which are pertinent to the issue re-
cited, .. e., that it was I" a material
fact to be proved that said All Wal
on, to wit, the 18th day of July, 1890,
and in the night time of said day,
did unlawfally, wilfully and malici-
ousIy set fire to and burn the
dwelling house, etc" The alleged
evidence By both of the defendants
that they saw All Wal on the night
in question On or near the premises
where the FIRE was said to have
taken place and at the time it was
said to be burning, that an effort
was made by Angee to arrest him,
and that he resisted with force and
ran away, and Angels additional
statement that he, All Wal, threw q
kerosene bottle at MIN, have certain
~ such direct and immediate con
nectIon with the material fact TO be
proved " as to give weight to the
testimony On that point; and assign
ments OF perjury being made as to
these statements, they are sufici
ent. This is in accordance with the
authority of Donahue vs.. State IA
Texas, 638, and 4 Grim Def, 1881
cited by defendants counsel in favor
OF his position, although it would
appear from certain dicta of the de-
cision in that case standing alone,
that the Indictment must specifically
alIege in stating the evidence upon
which perjury is assigned, that it is
material. 1t in sufficient if such
evidence is pertinent to the issue or
" fact to be proved elsewhere al
legged to be material.
The second ground of demurrer
is therefore overruled.
The third and fourth grounds of
the demurrer are also overruled.
They are as follows: It does not
appear with reasonable certainty
from said indictment, what prem
Uses are referred to, wherein the
said indictment charges that ain
truth and in fact said All Wal was
not on said premises ON said night"
nor does it appear what gate is re-
ferred to in and by the phrase,
6 the makai Eva gate" in said in
dictment contained, and
cit is otherwise uncertain and |
doubtful, from q reading of said |
Indictment, what place or locality |
is therein referred to, as the place |
at which as alleged therein, defen-
tant falsely swore to having seen
Ali Wal and to have seen one An
gee struggling with said All Wal on
he night of July 20, 1890"
We think that the indictments
furnish sufficient information ON
hese points inasmuch as they
clearly allege that All Wal was
charged with setting fire to Ahung's
lwelling house situate in Honolulu
md occupied by Ahung and others,
md that the defendants testified to
laving seen Ahung's house on fire
N the night in question, and to see
ng All Wal near to the burning
louse under the suspicious circum-
tances mentioned.
The decision excepted to included
lso the case of The King vs.. All
Took, which case we dispose of in
eparate opinion. As to the two
ases before us, that is, The King ).
.ngee and The King vs.. Ahung,
he decision of the Court below is
ustained
Honolulu, April ID, 1891.
Deputy Attorney General Creigh-
On for the Crown. g. w. Ashford
Or defendants.