The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-01-31


or the weight Of evidence.
OPINION or THE COURT BY BIcKERroS, }.
The plaintiff in error, Hang Fook,
and one All Kau, were charged JOINT
ly and convicted In the District
Court OF Honolulu, on charge OF
selling and furnishing opium con-
trary to law; an appeal was taken to
the Circuit Court OF the First Cir
cunt and the case tried at the August
Term OF said Circuit Court with q
iurv on the same charge rs that
made in the District Court, the YER
dict being a unanimous one OF guilty.
A motion for q new trial was made
by Hang Fook, which was denied,
and exceptions were taken to the
denial OF said motion, which excep-
t;ops were heard by this Court and
oyerruled, and the matter Is now
here on a writ OF error, allowed by
this Court and addressed to the
Clerk OF said Circuit Court
The assignments OF error are
First. THAT the record shows
that the petitioner and said All hau
were Jointly charged with and con-
yicted OF selling opium contrary to
law, whereas the plaintiff In error
claims that there Is In law no such
Joint offence"
Second. THAT the record shows
that the petitioner and All Kau were
Jointly charged with and convicted
OF selling opium contrary to law,
whereas the plaintiff In error claims
that the evidence In the case as
shown by the record fails to show
that any such joint offence was COM
mitted."
AS to the first error assigned, the
counsel for Hang Fook In his brief
says-NThe first error assigned Is
upon examination of the cases not
especially relied upon" We are OF
Ahe opinion that it cannot be relied
upon. The rule Is that where several
may join in the commission OF the
offence they are properly united IN
the same Indictment
Com. v. Tower, ct al, 8 Met. 5Z1.
Our statute also provides that "An
who take part In the commission or
anv offence shall be deem
ed principals therein"
Penal Code, CHI 5, Sec. l.
In selling or dealing In opium
there Is nothing to prevent several
persons taking part In the sale, there
BY taking part In the commission OF
an offence. This might be illustrated
in many ways
As to the second error assigned.
1t appears from the evidence that
one Chun Choy ian informer) visited
the house OF Hang Fook and All kau
on two occasions within one hour on
the night OF July 18th, 1894; the first
time be purchased so cents worth OF
opium from Hang Fook, who deliver
ed 1t to him. The money was put IN the
tray, All Kau was laying on the hoor,
but had previously opened the door
for Chun Choy. The second time he
went, the same man All Kau opened
the door. there were three or four
men In the room,-he asked All kau
where Hang Fook was, he answered
that he was IN the back room and
asked what Chun Choy wanted; he
told All Kau he wanted to buy more
opium and gave him so cents. All
Kau then told Hang Fook to give
him the opium, which he did Hang
Fook heard what was said, for he
was only q short distance of, from
the description given-only q very
few feet Hang Fook told All Ksu
to take the money and then delivered
the opium himself. The money that
was paid was marked and afterwards
came from the possession Of All kau
The evidence Of All Mon corroboratee
the testimony of Chun Choy as to
The aoNoTd aala ha having gone with
Chun Choy on that occasion and re-
NAMED on the veTanda but saw and
heard all that took place. The evi-
dence Of All Kau Is clear and poeit-
i've as to the fact that Chun Cboy
Was there that night and bought
opium from Hang Fook, but All Kau
denies that he had anything to do
with the sale, but admits that Hang
Fook told him to take care OF the
money for him. In our opinion the
evidence clearly shows that the two
men (defendants) acted In concert
and with full knowledge and under
standing OF what each was doing
In q charge Of selling opium sgsinst
two defendants We hold that IL one
received the money and the othel
delivered the opium for which the
money was paid, with full knewl-
edge and understanding of whsf
each was doing the sale was com
Plete, and as they both "took part
they were both guilty. "lf sewers
be engaged In the commission OF tn
same offence, they may be joined II
the same indictment, or may b
separately indicted" l Archibald