The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-03-15
OPINION OF THE COURT PER
JUDD, C. J.

The defendant was convicted at
the last September term of the Cir
cult Court, at Kau, Hawaii, of the
offense of selling opium on the 22d
January, 1891. Mr.. G. Stone who
was drawn on the jury was asked
on the vOir dire, Do you believe
that under our form of oath, China
men are equally to be credited with
a native Hawaiian or white MANI"
He answered, " No, they are not"
Counsel then objected to Mr.. Stone
sitting on the jury on the ground of
prejudice. The court then asked
Mr.. Stone several questions which
elected the following: 81 think
l could try case where there is
Chinese testimony, and weigh the
evidence without prejudice if it had
the impress of truth but / have
more confidence in natives or
white mans veracity. When a
Chinaman Is interested, I have not
equal belief in their veracity."
This is the evidence in the bill of
exceptions. The judges notes are
by the bill to be used as part of
the case. Reference to these shows
that the following must be added to
Mr.. Stones statements I" would
not throw out the testimony because
the witness was Chinese. 1 would
have less confidence in any witness
interested than in one not inter
ested. 1 could have nearly equal
confidence in native or Chinese evil
dence if interested.
We think that the whole effect of
Mr.. Stones answers show that he
was not disqualified by prejudice
against Chinese testimony. A juror
to be impartial is not obliged to say
that he will give equal credence to
every witness that testifies. And
when juror says that where there
is Chinese testimony, he will weigh
the evidence without prejudice if it
has the impress of truth, and would
not discard it, because it was
Chinese, he is not disqualified.
Moreover the defendants counsel
might have challenged Mr.. Stone
peremptorily. He did not, and let
the juror be sworn not having ex-
hausted his peremptory challenges.
The following cases are authority
for the position that an erroneous
overuling of an objection to a juror
avails nothing to the defendant, if
he does not finally exhaust his per-
emptory challenges.
Robinson VS.. Randall, 80, Ill,
521.
Sullings VS.. Shakespeare, 46
Mich, 40S.
Bust VS.. Panjaud, SO U. S., 1870.
We therefore override the excep-
ton.
The next point is that the court
admitted evidence of a witness to
the effect that he knew that the de-
fendant's business was that of opium
selling, and knew of sales of opium
made by him in January. The day
OlA WhICn Ok1ulu was SOAIA Wdo AoANA
in the charge on the 22d January.
The objection was made, that pre-
vious sales were not relevant to sus-
tain the charge of selling on the 22d
January.
The rule of law is we'll settled
that "proof of other offenses may
be admitted to prove Scienter OIL
guilty knowledge or to make out
the res geStae or to exhibit chain Of
circumstantial evidence of guilt In
respect to the act charged"
Wharton's Grim, Evil, Section
$50.
And in this case the questions
were allowed to be asked to show
the previous acquaintance of the
witness with the defendant, and tc
explain why he knew that defen
dant had the drug for sale, anC
went to him to buy it. The evi
dence was competent in this view
We therefore override the excep
tiOns.
G. Creighton, Dep. Atty. Gen.
for prosecution.
V. V. Ashford and Paul Neu
mann for defendant.
Honolulu, Feb. 9th, 1892.