The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-02-13

Not in this room. q. Did they talk
in favor of either side ? A. They |
merely said that the case had been
tried in Honolulu and brought up |
here. q. Did you understand that
or did he say or do anything which |
led you to believe that he intended |
to influence your judgment In this
case A. No. Q. Did he know yon |
as a juryman A Yes he knew L |
was a juryman." After some other |
unimportant 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 |
close connection with the defendant, |
and living with him as father, with |
the knowledge that the Hawaiian |
Jurors were summoned for the next |
dsy, and that the case In which he |
was interested was the first one to be |
tried, asking and obtaining the names
of the jurors who were coming from
the other side of the Island, meeting
and talking with two of them, John
Kanakamaikai and j. Kamahele, and
probably also j. Il. Kahookele, treat
ing to liquor several of the Jurors
and in the case of j. Kanakamaikal
making improper efforts to influence
him, which Kapuahiwa does not
deny. The presumption is not
violent one that his conversation
with j. Kamahele was of the same
character as that with Kamakamal-
kai. Kapuahiwa, 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 & 0. II. L.
Co. V. Davis $50, ILL.,, 154. 1.-The jury
box must be free from improper al
lowances. If the adminlstra-
ton of justice is to be kept pure and
above reproach, every appearance OF
a want of impartiality on the part OF
juries must be discountenanced." In
this case pending the trial after the
evidence was closed, but before ar
gument to the jury, the attorney for
the plaintiff (who was the prevailing
party was seen drinking and ''clink-
ing" glasses in public saloon with
one of the jurors trying the case. So far
as appeared, the only subject OF con
versation between the attorney andthe
Juror, on the occasion, was some ola
litigation in which the jurors wife
had been involved and which had
lust been compromised, the same at
. 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 " the city of Oskaloosa, 81
La. 74S. is another case where the yer
dict was set aside for misconduct OF &
Juror. Pending the trial Sunday
interSened, and the juror spent &
o night at the house of the prevailing
attorney, who was an old friend O
his. No conversation was had be
= tween them on the case, and botf
I were men of high character, but the
= Court reversed the verdict In view o
these circumstances, saying that 1T
> sanction the transaction would brl nj
disgrace upon the administration o
. the law In Bradbury V. Coney, g
> Me 225. the Court said, sit Is import
ant that jurymen should be devoi'
of prejudice. 1t is hardly less so tina
. they should be free from the suspl
! cion of prejudice" See Martin
" Morebock, 80 Ill.-4S5.
The books are full or cases treai
y ing of misconduct Of juries, but tn
- circumstances of each case must b
70 considered by themselves as they pre-
4 sent facts which are not likely to b
l. exactly repeated In other cases.
.. Numbers of these cases are IN re
a. ference to jurors after they hay
been impanelled in the cause. L
W the case before Us the improper II
10 fiuences were exerted upon the juror
III before they were drawn but We col
10 slider that this makes no differenc
gu for these men had been selected an
~ summoned for the term. and out
~ their number the jury in this Gas
e was to be drawn
Thompson and Merriam on Jurl'
~ saws 10. 416): g Where the SUGGEST
% party is shown to have attempted &
on improper means to influence the We
rs dict in his favor, whether by corrur
a' ing or intimidating particular Juro
III by arousing prejudice In their min
US against the opposite party, or b
re cause. or by undue Inequalities
ne civilities, the verdict will be set a6id
OK as q punishment to the offender al
~ as an example to others, without I
Use ference to the merits of the contr
1 versv. and ooithO1t considering aohetf
No the attempt aoas successful or not" v
~ adopt this principle.
III New trial ordered
les J. A. Magoon and w. A. Kline
ne for plaintiff A. Rosa and &. Crelg
a al ton, for defendant.