The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-08-08

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, Cd.
At the trial of this case at the last
term of the Circuit Court, Second
Circuit, plea to the Jurisdiction was
made, that the offense charged was a
misdemeanor, it not being punish
able by imprisonment for more than
two years. Section 2 of Chap. of
the Penal Code defines felony to be
an offense punishable with death or
Imprisonment for a longer period
than two years or by the forfeiture
of any civil or political right, and
also larceny" ANY offense not ap-
pearing to be felony or crime is
misdemeanor" Act 20 of the Execu-
tive and Advisory Councils OF the
Provisional Government conferred
jurisdiction, subject to appeal, upon
all District Magistrates, to hear and
determine all cases of misdemeanors
arising within their respective dis
tricts.
This case was brought to the Cir
cult Court upon examination and in
dictment and not by appeal from a
District Magistrate.
The offense charged is that de-
scribed In Section 10, Chapter % OF
the Penal Code, whose title is SOB
structing and perverting the course
of Justice" 1t is punishable in the
statute by imprisonment at hard
labor not more than two years, or by
fine not exceeding five hundred
dollars. So far forth, then, it is a
misdemeanor and not felony. But
a felony is also an offense punishable
by forfeiture of civil or political
rights. Article A of the Constltu-
ton of the Republic deprives of the
right to vote or hold office under the
government those who In due course
of law shall have been convicted OF
larceny, bribery, gross cheat, &c.
But it is urged that the chapter and
section under which this indictment
IS framed does not name the ofense
there described as bribery" 1t
does, however, describe an offense
which is answerable to the definition
Of bribery" to wit, In the case be-
fore us, the corruptly giving gift
to an executive officer to influence
his official action in a given case.
The plea was properly overruled.
The defendant demurred to the in
dictment on the ground 'that the
averment stating the offense is un-
certain, ambiguous and unintelligi-
bic and does not set out any offense
under any statute enacted within the
Hawaiian Islands"
The indictment reads latter stating
the Office of Mr.. Dickey) that the de-
PENDANT did give, &c.,-"a gift and
gratuity to wit: the sum of twenty
dollars with intent thereby to inhu-
ence his, the said g. w. Dickey's acts
as such Deputy Sheriff and executive
officer 5n q proceeding and matter then
pending and tolich might 6y Iato come or
be brought before him as such Deputy
Sheriff and erecuti0e officer, contrary To
the form of the statute, &c"
The proceeding or matter, should
be described. The Court should be
apprized of the nature of the matter
IN reference to which the acts of the
officer were intended to lie influenced
by the bride. The acts to be criminal
should be of a nature to peryert or
Obstruct the course of justice If the
officer was influenced by the bride.
The Indictment should have set them
out, for If they were not to accom-
JllSu q COlIupL purpose IL nOuAo HOS
be criminal TO give gratuity to iu-
huence the officer to do them or to
retain from doing them. The words |
of the statute have been followed IN !
the indictment, but they are general |
words and require fuller statement |
of the nature of the purpose which |
the bride was intended to subserve. |
If this were done, all the particulars |
would appear; whether the object of |
the bride was to secure immunity for /
q past offense or to allow violations
OF law in the future-wbether the
matter was pending or one which
might con before the officer.
Ii is made clear from the evidence
IN the case that the object of the
bride was to secure immunity from
arrest of a certain Chinese for SELL
ing opium aud of others for Smoking
opium on his premises. This being
a matter necessarily required TO be
proved 1t should have been averred
IN the indictment, and it having been