The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-02-09

cases where the offense is not of q
highly aggravated character, the
said Police Courts may punish the
offender by fine not exceeding two
hundred dollars, and by imprison-
ment not exceeding two years; but
in cases where such punishment
would be inadequate, the offender
shall be committed for trial accord
ing to existing provisions of law"
claws of 1870, chapter ~ By an
Act passed in 1880, the Legislature
probably intended to extend the
jurisdiction conferred on the Police
Courts of Honolulu, Hilo and Laha-
ina by the Act of 1870, to all other
police courts and all district courts,
but unfortunately Numbered in des-
cribing the offense as ''felonious as
sault by knife, sword, sword cane or
other dangerous weapon injurious to
life" This description of the Of
Tense forms the basis of the three
first grounds Of the motion. The
defendants counsel argues that,
whereas the offense charged is
assault with a weapon obviously
and imnlinently dangerous to life"
and the offense defined in the
later statute is felonious as
sault by knife, sword, sword-cane
or other dangerous weapon in
furious to life," no statutory offeGse
is charged, the earlier definition,
which is followed in the charge, be-
ing repealed by the statute of 1880.
do not find that the description
of the offense given in the act of
1870, which follows that in the Penal
Code, is repealed or amended by the
statute Of 1880. The first section of
this statute is: ga like jurisdiction
with that conferred upon the Su-
preme and Circuit Court and Police
Courts of Honolulu, Hilo and La
haina, is hereby conferred upon all
Police and District Courts of this
kingdom in all cases of felonious
assault by knife, sword, sword cane
or other dangerous weapon injurious |
to life," etc. 1t was undoubtedly the |
intention of the Legislature by this
act to confer upon the Police Court |
of Waikiki, which was the only |
ODuSL Ol1CS SOtIO UuCn
all Police Courts to be created in the |
future and all District Courts, the
powers in cases of assault, which had |
already been conferred on the Police
Courts of Honolulu, Hilo and La
haina, but through careless drafting,
the description OF the offense was
changed. However, this different
description may affect the practice
in the other Police Courts and the
District Courts, it does not affect |
that of the Police Courts of Homo
lulu, Hilo and Lahaina, which are
still subject to the statement of the |
act of 1870.
I therefore find that the charge in |
this case is a statutory offense that |
the Police Court of Honolulu being
one Of the police courts named in the |
Act of 1870, had jurisdiction to con-
vict and sentence the defendant, and |
I therefore override the first and |
second grounds of the motion.
Under the foregoing construction
of the statute, the third ground of
the motion is fully answered and
shown to be inapplicable to the case
at bar.
In regard to the fourth ground, a
similar point was made in the case
of The Queen vs.. Young Quai, July
Term, 1891, in which the charge was
the same as in the present case but
the lower Court had committed the
prisoner for trial, and the Court said,
referring te the second section of
the statute 1t is thus made OPP
tional with the lower Court either to
take jurisdiction and to proceed to
Judgment if it finds the offense to be
not of a highly aggravated charac-
ter, or to commit forthwith if it finds
the offense to be Of such character
that the punishment it is authorized
to infict would be inadequate" This
ruling correctly states the meaning
of the statute, which clearly places
within the lower court the discretion
of treating such a case as within its
Jurisdiction or as one for committal,
and gives no support to the defend
ants proposition, that such discre
ton is in the prosecuting officer.
4. S. Hartwell for the demurrer;
Deputy Acknowledgement Creighton
contra.
Honolulu, October 3, 1891.