The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-03-24
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD,
c. ].

At the last October term of the
Court, the defendant was tried and
convicted on appeal before Jury of
the offense of assisting in the man
agement of a lottery. The panel
being exhausted, bystander, l..
w. p. Kanealli, was summoned to
serve on the jury as talesman. On
taking his seat, he stated that he
was a Representative for Waikiki,
Island of Maui. The Court thought
he was not thereby disqualified, and
he was sworn without objection by
the defendants counsel. No excep-
ton was taken to the Courts allow
ing him to sit as juror.
On the rendition of the verdict
the defendants counsel moved to
set aside the verdict and grant a
new trial on the ground that the
Juror Kanealii was disqualified I'M
der Article 20 of the Constitution,
he being a member of the Legis-
lature.
We are of the opinion that this
objection in order to be of any avail
to the defendant should have been
made the subject of an exception.
But as the question is important
to be decided, we shall consider 1T.
The last part of Article 20 of the
Constitution reads: And no men,
"ber of the Legislature shall, during
" the time for which he is elected,
4" be appointed to any civil Office
"under the Government, except
" that of a member of the Cabinet"
The only limitations to the sum-
moning of persons to do jury duty are
that they must be "suitable per-
sons" being residents, not Post
masters or Firemen. In our prac-
tice, Government employees, pro-
fessional men and Foreign Consuls
are also ordinarily exempted. 1t is
not essential that jurymen, if for
eigners, or of foreign birth or pa
rentage be naturalized. But in Or
der to hold an Office of profit or
emolument under the Government,
the person must take the oath of
allegiance. Act of 1874, Compiled
Laws, p. 100. This Legislative con-
struction that employment as juror
is not the holding of an "office of
profit or emolument," has weight
with us. Such service is not strictly
an "office," though we may speak
of the coffee" of juryman, mean
ing his function as such. 1t is not
an Office because it is a temporary
employment from which the person
is relieved as soon as the duty is
performed. The duty to serve as a
juryman is an obligation to the COM
munity in which he resides, and his
consent to serve is not essential.
His position as juryman is not the
result of a contract, as is the case OF
ordinary appointments to Office.
Moreover the summoning of mem
Der of the Legislature to serve as a
juror is not within the evils which
the Goth Article of the Constitution
was intended to cure. We cannot
imagine that the employment of a
person to act as juror could ever
be considered as reward for sub
serviency to the Government In the
Legislature. Furthermore, we have
no means of knowing whether the
juror in question was one of the nine
who voted for the conviction of the
defendant or not.
We therefore hold that the sum-
moning of a member of the Legis-
lature to serve as juror is not the
appointment of such person to q
civil Office under the Government
and is not prohibited by Article &c
of the Constitution.
The exceptions are dismissed and
new trial refused.
Dep. Atty. Genl. Creighton fol
the Crown, J. L. Kaulukou for the
| defendant.
Honolulu, March 10Th, 1892.