The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-07-28


/ from the list OF jurors that had baan
/ drawn by the First Judge OF the Cir
+ cunt Court OF the First Circuir. nap1aI,,
W. y. Whiting, with Geo. T.ncas
who was at the time OF the dr,v,ir,,,,
. OF SAID list OF jurors deputy clerk III
the judiciary Department. and that
the SAID list was not drawn by s3id
Judge and with Henry smith. F.I
Mo - a the time of making up -aid
. ment. pa
Our answer to this is that Mr.. Geo.
Lucas l. clerk OF the Cir,.uir Court
flIst Circuit, and As such had the
authority with Judge Whiting Secs.
jury.
The third exception is:
Third. That upon the examination
OF the jurors drawn To try the said
cause upon their yoiy- dire. one. /
Lucas, who had been drawn a. such
! juror, was examined aud testified
/ Indicating some previous knowledge
/ OF the case
/ Upon the authority of the Queen Y.
! LeOng Man, ; Haw. $50, and it APP
pearing that the juror J. Lucas was
/ not challenged peremptorily though
/ none of the challenges allowed TO de-
/ PENDANT had been made, the excep-
/ ton TO the oyerruling of the objection
TO the juror avaiIs nothing TO de-
PENDANT.
The remaining exceptions TO the
Introduction of evidence i as follows:
4th. Counsel for the defendant OBJ
jected TO the question 10 the witness
Herman kaOuII in his examination
in chief on behalf of the prosecution:
Estate TO the Court and jury how you
came to be there Directing to any
evidence tending to show that the de-
PENDANT had opium or was about to-
smuCgle opium into the country AS
being irrelevant and inadmissible.
The Court: "The possession of opium
aud the smuggling OF opium are both
unlawful and are punishable by the
laws Of this country, Mr.. MagOOu, and
I think everything is competent to
show and should be admitted, tending
10 show why this witness acted a. he
did on that night. Perhaps the pres
ent question Is premature, but if this
witness shall testify That be made an
attempt to arrest this man, he then
may be asked how he came 10 do so,
anu ia testifying he can testify To
everything that was told him, or in
formation which led him to act a. he
did. [ shall overrule your objection"
Mr.. MagoOn: Exception.
ed to the question to said KaOuli upon
his examination in chief: 'Up TO the
time Of this arrest of the defendant
was Kauhane to all appearances in his
usual health?' on the ground that the
witness is not an expert.
The Court: | think the witness
could be asked what his apparent con-
ditiOn was, not TO testify as an expert,
but what was his apparent condition
Mr.. MagOOn: | will note an eXcep-
ton.
Defendants counsel objected TO the
question to said Kaouli in his exami-
nation in chief: state distinctly
why didn't you tell him?" chat they
were officers, on the ground that it
makes no difference what reason they
had in their own minds for not telling
the defendant, it being obligatory up
on them to tell the defendant that
they were officers.
The Court: II think, Mr.. Magoon,
as matter of evidence it should be
allowed. After the evidence is all in
will then state to the jury what the
law is as TO whether they are justified
in making the arrest or not, but at
this stage OF the trial | think the ques-
ton is pertinent"
Mr.. MagoOn: Exception.
9th. That defendants counsel OBJ
jected to the question on redirect ex-
animation OF John Hale: Do you
know when kauhaue was cut?n on
the ground that the witness has al
ready stated he did know when kau-
hane was cut and he saw him cut.
Objection Overruled. Exception.
eth. Defendants counsel objected
to the question put TO the witness, B.
2. Fabian: Have you seen that label
on the OpiniOu befOre2''
Mr.. Magoon: I made an objection
at the beginning Of the case with ref
erence to evidence being introduced to-
show that the defendant had opium in
his possession. The Court allowed it
to be introduced as part Of the res
gestu. I claim now, may it please
the Court, the officers not having COM
piled with the law in making the ar
rest, that any attempt TO show that
the defendant was violating the law
Is wholly immateriaI. The officers
cannot justify themselves in arrest
ing this man illegally, or Justify
themselves in ate ptIug TO make an
arrest a all ID this ease without bav-
ing first complied with the law, and |
submit that any evidence tending TO
show that this defendant had any
thing on his person in the nature OF
opium or which would make him an
against the law i wholly ir-
relevant and ImmateriaL a. far 81 this
case i concerned, and I move
the Court, please, ID have all
the evidence with reference TO the
opium or attaching this defend
ant with the possession o5 opium
stricken OUT.
Objection ovsrruIeI Notion de
MED. Exception.
We find no cause for sustaining
these exceptions and they axe over
ruled.
\ further ground for the motion for
= new trial i:
sth. That the jury drawn TO try the
said cause was not kept IN couine-
meut after they were sworn IN as
Jurors, but we've allowed 70 90 TO their
homes upon each adjournment Of the
Court and while the trial OF said
cause was IN progress and not ended