The Hawaiian gazette., 1893-11-14
EEEAR, y



terminate proceedings which we're COM
rns-ceG before committing rnastS-
r-z-e. y second Indictment may De
presented without 8 denomination be
fore rte committing ms ElStrats.
Jecuartv does uos attach until a Jury has
been lulu1nelIei sld sworn. nor unless
the Indictment i valid.
FAILURE 20 prosecute upon 81 invalid IL
dicrDent. OF AZ term OF court during
which . person : committed oy mag
isrrare. does not operate As an scQnittSl.
Where q person Is committed by 4 msSiS-
c-ate during one term Of the trial court.
the term next succeeding the commit
nelt Is the next term OF the court
Former acquittal = not proper ground for
q motion 70 quaSn-
A rlea OF former acquittal should show
raat the same person was acquitted OF
rhs same oeeuSe n 4 court OF compe-
rent Jurisdiction upou 4 valid indict-
re-t. and should Be supported by
proper evidence
OPINION OF TIE COURT By FREAR. j..
Ire defendant was committed by
The Police Justice Of Honolulu ON the
18th DAY OF July. 1892, for trial before
the next term Of the Supreme Court
At that date the said Court was in
session. holding the regular July
term. On July 29th, five indictments
we're found against defendant and
presented to the Court On July 30,
1892. the last dsy Of the term, the
defendant fled motion to quash the
indictments on the ground that they
had not been presented by an officer
having any legal authority 10 present
the same. the indictments having
been signed by H 4 WIdenanu, as
Attorney General Gd interim by MS
deputy. Chss- Creighton. The qUes-
ton was reserved for the Supreme
Court IN Bsnco. The motion wss
sustained by 8 decision OF that Court
fled October Is. 1892 At that date
the regular term Of the Supreme
Court was being held On the 2Sh
OF October, 1892. five indictnel
were presented and the defendant
was allowed until the January term,
1893. 70 plead. In the meantime the
new Judiciary Act came into force
and the ssid January term was not
held. but by law all cases returnable
ST that term went on the calender for
the February term, 1898, Of the Cir
cult Court Of the First Circuit. At
that term these cases were by order
Of the Court continued until the May
term. az which term the defendant
demurred to the indictments. The
above statement OF facts is taken
from the decision Of this Court rem
dered in these cases July ., 1888.
The demurrer was oyerruled By the
Circuit Court in z decision filed June
I3. 1888. Exceptions were taken to
the ruling OF the Circuit Court, but
this Court. for reasons stated IN Its
decision above referred to, declined
to entertain the exceptions. 1t would
seem from the briefs OF counsel that
the defendant was tried on one of the
indictments at the last August term
OF the Circuit Court, the trial result
ing in the sequittal of the defendant
on the 9th Of said month. On the
18th Of the same month the defendant
moved to quash the remaining four
indictments, and the questions raised
BY these motions were reserved by
the Circuit Court for the decision OF
the Supreme Court.
The reasons assigned for quashing
the indictments viii be taken up IN
their order.
First: = That all proceedings /
which were commenced before the
Police Judge of Honolulu as com
hitting magistrate in July, 1892.
came to an end with the decision OF 1
the Supreme Court sustaining the I
motion to qussh made at the July .
term. 1892, Of said Supreme Court"
The Court, in allowing the motion
70 Guash. held in effect that the in
dietments were Yoid,-because pre-
scented BY no officer living authority
70 present the same. This being so,
the case stood as If no indictments
had been presented. The proceed
ings upon those particular indict
ments came to an end; but, being
utilities. they could not yitiate other
proceedings which were properly
taken.
Seeond:-That defendant having
had one Indictment presented
against him at said July term of the
Supreme Court was thereby placed
n jeopardy and cannot therefore he
so placed again"
Our Constitution does not contain
the provision found in the constitu-
tons Of most OF the United States,
that no person shall be put twice in
jeopardy for the same offense, but 1t
provides, as Is the case with a mum
Der Of the constitutions Of the United
States, that no person shall be re
CURED to answer again for 81 ofense,
Of which he has been duly convicted
OF of which he has been duly acquit-
ted" 1t Is unnecessary for Us TO
consider whether there is any sub
stsntisl difference between these pro
visions. for 1t Is well settled that a
person Is not put IN jeopardy BY the
presentation of an indictment
which Is so defective that no
valid Judgment can be rendered
upon It. nor until q jury has been
=nr.ro11l1 and sroru Cooiav