The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-10-27

This cause came on for trial at the
February term, 1893, of the Circuit
Court of the FRS: Circuit, and re-
suited in a verdict for the plain
tiff for possession of the land
claimed, to which the defendants
! duly excepted as contrary to law
and the evidence, and gave notice OF
a motion for new trial A motion
for new trial was filed and argued.
A number Of grounds were set up,
one being the misconduct of the jury,
naming Sam Kalaluhi, Piikoi Okuu,
Koloa and Peter Davis particularly.
A number of affidavits on both sides
were filed. The Court after over
ruling all the grounds set up, except
ing the above mentioned one, says,
During the trial of the case the
Court was not satisfied with the &C
ton of several Of the jurors, but this
of itself is not sufficient. I'll Mr.. Bro
new trielo brUieto be con- Grant q
tTthe originsniu s am strongly i'm
y. essed by the affidavits fled, that
there was such misconduct on the
part of the jury in this case as to
cast suspicion upon any verdict that
they rendered; and on this ground L
sustain the motion and order the
verdict set aside and that new trial
be had" To which decision and or
der the plaintiff duly noted and filed
exceptions. And the matter now
comes here on q duly allowed bill of
exceptions.
Defendants counsel contends that
this Court should consider and pass
on all the grounds taken by him in his
motion for q new trial, that the Yer
dict was contrary to law and the evil
| dence, etc, that were overruled by
the trial Judge. To be entitled to
this he should have excepted to these
rulings and come here on a bill of
exceptions; he prevailed on one
ground alone. We see no reason
why two bills of exception should
not be allowed and argued, one from
each side.
A man named Kupaa who is on
very friendly terms with plaintiff
and family was constantly in attend
ance during the three days of the
trial, and was seen frequently in
close conversation with some of the
Jurors during the recesses Of the
| Court, and when others came near,
the conversations would stop at once.
| This is clear from the affidavits of
Mahoe, Kanakanui, Police Officer
Nahoolewa and Peter Davis. Peter
Davis, one of the jurors, met Mahoe
! Zone of the defendants) in the street
| during the time the trial was on, and
said, lyon cannot win the land, the
iury are on Kauhi's side Kauhi was
assisting in the plaintiffs case);
there is one man giving them food
and drink" He also said Nance was
in the right if the jury, chad not
been bought;" then Sam Kalaluhi,
another Juror, came along with some
gin in a bottle and gave it to Davis,
then Davis said to Mahoe, Il
don't say to you that this
bottle came from Kauhi," and, con-
tinuing, said to Kanakanui, You
can't win your case" All this ap
pears from the affidavits of Mehoe,
Kanakanui and Sam Hsluapo. There
are affidavits as to remarks made to
defendants by some of the jurors,
such as mo use for you to try to
make a case of this, you will lose
your money for your lawyer and the
food for your witnesses" etc.
In the case of Dana vs.. Roberts Il
and 2 Root, 134 and 45D the Court
says: The principal guard upon
Jurors in this state is their oath and
their virtue. If they are suffered to
enter into conversation with people
respecting the causes they have under
consideration, the purity of trials by
jury, the great barrier of liberty and
justice will be corrupted; it ought,
therefore, to be guarded with the
most vigilant attention" This case
is cited in Graham q Waterman,
New Trials, p. 100.
Then there is the very contradic-
tory statements made by Sam Kala-
luhi as to where he got the bottle of
gin. The affidavits of Peter Davis,
one of the jurors, corroborates all
these statements; he also says that
Sam Kalaluhi was working for the
plaintiff, because he tried to infu-
epce me-" when the witnesses were
testifying he would say, You can't
trust that man; it is no use to
trust that man." This all goes to
show that some of these jnrors had