The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-02-13

Not IN this room. Q, Did they talk
in favor OF either side ! A. They
merely said that the csse had been
tried in Honolulu and brought up
here. .. Did You understand that
or did he say or do anything which
led you to believe thst he intended
to influence your Judgment in this
case 4. No. .. Did he know you
as iurymsn A Yes he knew l
wss jurymsn." After some other
unlmportsnt questions had been ask
ed and replied TO the man said that he
could try the case fairly for both
sides but he was challenged peremp-
torily by plaintiff. We have, in
short, the facts that person having
q close connection with the defendant,
snd living with him as q father, with
the knowledge that the Hawaiian
jurors We're summoned for the next
day, and that the case IL which he
wss interested wss the first one 20 be
tried, ssking and obtaining the names
Of the jurors who were coming from
the other side of the Island. meeting
sud talking with two of them. John
kanskamsikai and j. Hamshele, and
probably also J. h hahoOkele. trest.
ing 10 liquor several of the Jurors
snd in the case Of j. ksnsksmsikai
making Improper efforts TO influence
him. which kspushiwa does not
deny. The presumption is not q
violent one that his conversation
with j kamahele was of the same
character as that with kamaksmai-
ksi. kapuahiws, in treating the
Jurors to liquor did it undoubtedly
for the purpose OF obtaining their
favor in the case. As was said
by the Court in NJ. i o. r. r.
Co. '. Davis $50, ILL.,, 154. The jury
box must be free from improper al
lowsnces. If the sdministra-
ton of justice is to be kept pure and
above reprosch, every appearance Of
s want of impsrtislity on the part of
iuries must be discountensnced." In
this case pending the trial after the
evidence was closed, but before sr-
gument to the jury, the attorney for
the plsintiff (who was the prevailing
psrty) was seen drinking and "clink
ing" glasses in public saloon with
one OF the Jurors trying the case So far
SIS appeared. the only subject of con
versstion between the attorney andthe
juror. on the occasion, was some old
litigation in which the jurors wife
had been involved and which had
just been compromised, the same ct
tOrney having represented the ad-
verse interest. 1t was held that the
mere matter of association, under the
circumstances. between the juror and
the attorney. was improper and was
ground for reversal of the Judgment.
Stafford Y. the city Of Oskslooss. 81
Is. AS. Is another case where the YER
dict was set aside for misconduct of a
juror. Pending the trial Sunday
intersened. snd the juror spent a
night at the house of.the prevailing
attorney. who was sn old friend of
his. No conversation was had be-
tween them on the case, and both
were men of high character, but the
Court reversed the verdict in view of
these circumstances, saying that ''to
sanction the transaction would bring
disgrace upon the administration of
the law In Bradbury Y. Coney, g.
Me 225, the Court said, 1T is import
ant thst jurymen should be devoid
of prejudice Ii is hardly less so that
they should be free from the suspi-
cion OF prejudice" See Martin Y.
Morebock. 32 Ill. Ass.
The books are full OF cases treat
ing Of misconduct Of juries, but the
circumstances of each case must be
considered by themselves as they pre-
sent facts which are not likely 10 be
exactly repeated in other cases
Numbers OF these cases are IN re
ference to Jurors after they have
been iupsDelled in the cause. II
the case before Us the improper in
fu-uces were e1erted upon the Jurors
before they were drawn but we con
slider that this makes no difference.
for these men had been selected ard
summoned for the term. and out OF
their number the jury in this case
was 10 be drawn.
Thompson and Merriam on Juries
says Up. 49,: Where the successful
party Is shown to have attempted by
improper means TO influence the var
dict IN his favor. whether By corrupt
ing or intimidsting particular jurors
by arOusiug prejudice in their minds
sgsiUs5 the opposite party, Or his
cause. q By undue hOspitsliti@s q
ciyili;ies. the verdict viii Be set aside.
s. { punishment to the offender ard
g sn example 70 others, without re
ference 70 the merits Of the c5ufro
varzy. and u-i.is1; o71SidSTisg rietier
~ caeuys r1s tgesssTzl oT E0,.- We
adopt this principle
NeE TRIAL ordered
J. A. Msgoon and W A. Kinney,
for plaintiff 4 Ross snd G. Creigh-
tor. foE defendant