The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-02-15
In the Supreme Court Of the Ha
Waiian Islands.
July Term, A. D. 1891.
The QUEEN vs.. CHEZ Wal.
PERJURY.
Demurre' to the Indictment.
BY DOLE, j., presiding at
the Term.
Demurre' to the. Indictment.

The indictment charged the pris.
oner with perjury in the second de-
gree, committed as a witness in the
cause of Chin Hee vs. Ho Kan Ye ct
al, suit in equity which was tried
before the Chief Justice in May last.
The defendant demurred to the
indictment on the following grounds:
l. That the said indictment does
not aver that the facts to which the
defendant is alleged to have testified
were material or pertinent to, or
affected or might affect the matter in
question, to wit, the alleged minority
of the plaintiff Chin Hee.
2. That none of the facts to which
the defendant is alleged to have
testified were material or pertinent
to, or affected or might affect the
said matter in question, but on the
contrary that all of said facts were
immaterial, irrelevant and insignifi-
cant facts which could in no way tend
to establish the truth or untruth of
the minority Of said plaintiff Chin
Hee.
3. That the said indictment does
not aver whether the oath was adj
ministered to the defendant in per-
son or through an interpreter, or in
either way.
4. That the said indictment does
not aver that the said Alfred w.
Garter then had legal authority to
administer the said oath.
Taking the first and second
grounds of the demurrer together.
The statement upon which the
perjury is assigned must be averred
to be material to the issue in which
it was given, or it must be clear to
the Court that it was material from
the nature of its information. REX
V. Angee, 8th Haw., p. SIT of scrap
book.) In this case the Indictment
does not allege that such statement
was material. Is it evident that it
was material from its relation with
the issue?
The material question in the case
Of Chin Hee vs.. Ho Kan zee ct al,
in regard to which this statement
was made, was whether the plaintiff,
"Chin He, was an infant of tender
years, to wit: Of the age of four or
five years" The prisoner, as is al
legged in the indictment, falsely sta
ted on this point, under oath, that
she. Chez Wal, was employed by
Chin Hee; that that person in Court
pointing to one All Yung, alias Aho)
was Chin Hee; that Chin Hee per-
sonally paid him his wages"
There is nothing in this statement
that enables the Court to decide
whether or not it was pertinent to
the issue. Because defendant swore
that he had dealings with a man
famed Chin Hee, whom he pointed
out, it cannot be inferred that such
testimony standing alone is material
to the question whether or not Chin
Hee, the plaintiff in the said equity
suit, is q minor of tender years.
There is nothing in the statement
that connects the Chin Hee referred
to by defendant with the said plain
tiff Chin Hee except the similarity of
name, and that is not enough. rex
V. All Fook, 8th Haw., p. 367 of scrap
book.
l therefore find the indictment to
be insufficient on the first and second
grounds of the demurrer.
Deputy Attorney General Creigh-
ton and w. r. Castle for the Crown;
A. S. Hartwell for the defendant.
Dated Honolulu, Jan. 5, 1892.