The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-10-23
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR,

OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR, ].
This case comes here from the
Second Circuit on defendants excep-
tions 10 the overriding of his two
motions for 2 new trial, he having
been found guilty, by unanimous
verdict, of malic)usly burning q
field Of cane.
Before argument on the merits 1t
was moved for the prosecution that
the exceptions be dismissed on the
ground that the Circuit Courts have
no jurisdiction to entertain motions
for new trials in criminal cases.
Such was the ruling Of this Court
in 1869 10 The King V. Cornwell, 3
Haw. 154, The King V. Kaona, Ib.
lis, and the King v. Apuna, Id. l66,
and when after a uniform practice
for twenty years in pursuance OF
those decisions the question was
again raised, the same Court,
though consisting of an entirely
different personne, followed the
earlier cases in The King V. Reeve,
7Haw. 313, 1876, and The King V.
Akana, Id. $40. This practice was
adhered to until the Act to Reorgan-
ize the Judiciary Department went
into effect, January l, 1898, since
when until the present time, al
thought the practice was not express
" altered by that Act, the Circuit
Judges have, we believe, entertained
such motions whenever presented,
and exceptions to their rulings
thereon have been considered by this
Court, without so much as doubt
having been suggested as to the
propriety of doing so.
We do not feel at liberty to over
rule the former decision, although
the reasoning upon which they were
founded is not altogether salts
factory. They were not contrary to
any express statute, and the Court
was then, as it is not now, free to disre,
gard the common law, and to base its
decisions, as it no doubt did largely
in those cases, upon considerations
of expediency and convenience In
view of the then existing conditions.
But we are of the opinion that
under the Judiciary Act of 1892 the
Circuit Courts are courts of general
and unlimited jurisdiction clothed
with the powers inherent in such
courts. one of which powers is that
of granting new trials. Bartling V.
Jamison, A Mo. 141; Commonwealth
V. McElhaney, Ill Mass. 439.
In the leading case of The King V.
Cornwell, the Court avoided passing
N direct terms upon the question
whether the Circuit Court had
general and unlim ted jurisdiction
in cases cognizsble before them"
but it did hold that "their jurisdic-
ton is precisely and fully defined in
the statutes" and that they had no
right to hear motions for new trials
in criminal cases, because such right
was not expressly granted" to them,
thereby implying that they were not
courts of general jurisdiction, which
require no grant of such power. 1t
was further held that the Supreme
Court, although not the court hold
ing the trial, and not expressl y given
the power by statute, might never
theless grant new trials in such cases
under its statutory general superin-
tendence of all courts of inferior
jurisdiction" It is clear that the
Circuit Courts were then regarded
as, at least for some purposes, courts
of inferior jurisdiction.
The Judiciary Act above referred
to undoubtedly wrought great
change in the character of such
courts. Prior to that Act the Sup
RENE Court was a court of original as
well as appellate jurisdiction. All
the Justices thereof might sit to
gether even in jury cases and did in
fact so sit until the year in which the
Cornwell case was decided, since
which time, except for number of
years in capital cases, it has, when
sitting as a court of original juris-
diction, been presided over by a
single Justice When so sitting it
was regarded as a court of unlimited
jurisdiction (the only such court on
this island), and as such exercised
the power of granting new trials in
criminal cases. The Circuit Court
Oh this island had been abolished in
1864 and the Office of Circuit Judge,
who then had only limited appellate
jurisdiction in chambers, was also
abolished in 1874. On the other
islands the Circuit Courts were pre-
sided over by Justice of the Sup
rene Court sitting with or without
Circuit Judge. Their jurisdiction
was limited to some extent, though
not so much so as the jurisdiction of
the Circuit Judge when sitting alone
in chambers. For instsnce, the Cir
cult Courts could not enforce mari
time liens and hypothecations, or try
suits against the Government.
Their jurisdiction when first estab-
lished was more limited than at the
date Of the Cornwell case. Until