The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-11-21
DECISION.
DEPARTMENT OF THE JUDICIARY,
Honolulu, Nov. 10, 1892.

To HER MAJEsTY's CABINET.
GENTLEMEN:-The Justices Of the
Supreme Court have had the honor
to receive from you a request for an
opinion upon questions stated as
follows:
"a special election for Noble t.
take the place OF ". II. Cornwell,
resigned, for the islands Of Maui.
Molokai and Lanai, has been ordered
to take place on Tuesday, the 18th
day Of November instant. Upon the
18th day Of November, at $40 P. NJ,
a request was received at the Interior
Department, signed by the requisite
number of Noble voters requesting
a Hooking, Esq, to stand as a can
didate for Noble for that district
1T appears also from the records
of the Interior Department that A.
Hooking, Esq, IS member Of the
Road Board and also Fence Com
missioner for the district of Maka-
wac, island Of Maui.
The following questions suggest
themselves, upon which an opinion
is respectfully requested:
First. Is the filing of the request
upon behalf of A. Hooking at $40
P. NJ. on the 18th day of November,
1892, a compliance with Section AZ
of the General Election Law of the
Kingdom, being Chapter Sc of the
Session Laws Of 1890, which says:
Which request shall be deposited
with the Minister of the Interior
not less than fourteen days before
the day of election or should it have
been filed, to comply with the law,
upon the 18th of November ?
Second. Does the fact Of A.
Hooking holding, on November 10Th,
1892, by the records of the Interior
Department, the Offices of member of
the Road Board and of Fence Com
missioner for the district of Maka-
wac, render him ineligible under
Section % of said Act, such offices
being of trust and profit under the
Government or under department
thereof 2"
To these questions we have the
honor to reply as follows: The sub
ject Of computation of time within
which an act is to be done has been
discussed by very many Courts and
the decisions thereon are very mum
erous. Where an act is to be done
within a specified number of days
after a specified event, the rule now
supported by nearly all of the
modern cases, is that the time should
be computed by excluding the day
or the day of the event from
which the time is to be com
puted and including the last day
of the number constituting the
specified period. Sutherland or
| Statutory Construction p. 135. This
principle is recognized in section
1166 of the Compiled Laws which
reads: 1.-The time within which al
act is to be done, as provided in any
part of this chapter, shall be com
puted by excluding the first day, anC
including the last. If the last day
be Sunday, it shall be excluded"
But in the Election Law under
consideration the day of election
November 29th) must be excluded
for the law says the request must bt
deposited not less than fourteen
days before the day of election. Elk
Guiding then this day aud counting
back, the day Of the depositins
November 15th) would be the four
teenth day. Should this day also b,
excluded? IL it should be excluded
in the computation then only thir
teen days would elapse between tn
filing and the election. The deci
sions on this question are contradic
tory. They need not all be cites
here. As the law does not regart
fractions of day and the depositini
not being an act which would occup
the whole Of day, the request ma
be regarded as having been deposite
, at the first moment of the day. 1t is
general rule that Courts refuse t
take notice of a fraction of day III
less it is necessary to decide which c
two events happened first.
In State ex rel Reitemeyer VS.. Ga'
conade Co, Court 80, Mo. 102, til
,, ordinance required an oath as a PR
requisite to an election Of a count
treasurer to be filed in Court sat leas
. five days before the day of election
The oath was filed on the Both of o.
, tober. The election took place o
the 4th of November The Coul
held that sin the computation {
] time it Is laid down generally tn;
4 where the computation is to be mad
I from an act done, the day when sue
act was done is included. But it WI
be excluded whenever such exclusio
will prevent forfeiture. Here
exclude the day on which the oat
was filed would cause a forfeitur
q We think that the day should |
: counted, and therefore that the pet
toner complied with the ordinance
a The mandamus to commission II
petitioner was awarded.
!. In Thomas VS.. Affiick, Is Penn, l
the statute required notice lat lea
=, thirty days before the suing out
: the writ" The notice was given {
: the 18th of May. The suit w
. brought on the 18th of June Exclu
:. ing both the 10Th of May and Il
i 18th of June would leave but % day
=. To include the 10Th of May, the dt
of service, would make 30 days. I'll
l. Appellate Court held that the 'ru
o of computation is to include the fir
. day and exclude the last; and appl
o ing it to this case we find the actiC