The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-07-18

and overruled and exception duly
taken.
There Is 10 error In the law charg-
ed by the Court TO the jury pointed
out to us and the law as charged Is
the law of the case, and the sole ques-
ton is whether there was evidence TO
go to the jury.
By Chapter LVI Session Laws of
1892. the jury in all cases shall be
the exclusive judges of the facts IN
suits tried before them, and the
! judge presiding at any jury trial
shall In no case comment upon the
character, quality, strength, weak
ness or credibility of any evidence
submitted, or upon the character, at
titude, appearance, motive or re
liability of any witness sworn in a
case. Provided however that moth
ing herein shall be construed to pro-
hibit the Court from charging the
Jury whether there is or is not evil
dence Indicating the evidence) tend
ing to establish or rebut any specific
fact involved In the cause, nor shall
it be construed to prohibit the setting
aside of verdict rendered by such
against the weight of evidence and
the granting of new trial therein.
This Act restricted the powers
formerly held and exercised by the
judge in instructing the jury and
commenting on evidence and witness
ses, and throws the whole burden
upon the jury to weigh the evidence
and credibility of witnesses without
assistance from the Court and gen
orally their verdict must stand unless
it clearly appears that they, the jury,
have abused their powers and judg-
ment, and could not have based their
verdict upon the evidence.
From the evidence for the prosecu-
ton, it clearly appears that the sad
die, the object of the larceny, was
stolen, also its ownership, value and
the Uenue; and further that alterations
had been made in the saddle by
defendant Pahu after it's theft; and
also the recovery of the saddle from
a place Of concealment In the house
of Palm. The saddle was recovered
by the Deputy Sheriff from the pos
counted for its being in his posses !
sion by saying it came from All Los !
and that he, Pahu, paid SIS for it;
this was said In the presence of |
Pahu's daughter, who as a witness, |
accounts for Pahu's possession of the |
saddle in different manner. (Testi- |
mony of Kspela and John Watson). |
Further, Kapela, the daughter OF /
Pahu, testified that she boue bit the
saddle of Keliikalaea one of the de-
PENDANTS, and that she told Pahu of
her purchase. Pahu denied this (see
testimony of John Watson). Further
testimony rs to Pahu using the sad
die was given by Honolulu" The
story as to the purchase of the saddle
from All Lo by Pahu was not true.
The mere proof of possession of
stolen property IS not sufficient to
constitute larceny, yet when accom-
panied by false explanations of its
possession, q prin1G facie case is made
and it should properly be submitted
to the jury. There was evidence in
this case for the Court to have refus-
ed to discharge the defendant.
As TO he exception to the refusal
TO grant the motion for new trial
ss the verdict was contrary to the
low e1ui tuo 0NlucuCS, IL 10 5uu1ClcHb /
TO say that the evidence put on by
the defense strengthened the case
for the prosecution and no clear
ground is shown that the jury erred
in their verdict or abused their
powers, there being evidence upon
which TO submit the case to them.
Exceptions overruled.
4. q. NJ. Robertson for prosecu-
ion; 5. K. Kane for defendant
Honolulu, July IL, 1895.