The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1896-10-30
OPINION OF The COURT. BY WHITING. J,

The defendant convicted charge Of unawfully sell
opium IN The Circuit Court First Circuit, and brings his
bin Of exceptions this Court claiming IN the charge
OF the presiding Judge 70 the Jury.
The Judge charged the jury the law Of alb the language
the charge however objected and the law charged
! red sound law but defendant claims that the defense
Of abb not SCI up by him and not IN issue in the case
and that he injured and uced by the Court constituting
the defendants evidence offered prove ab whereas de-
PENDANT claims merely di>credit the witnesses for the
prosecution and offered for other purpose
The evidence certified up appears have been presented
generally without limitation nor Tor special purposes, and
where does appear that defendant intended offered
restrict effect TO discredn testimony Of witnesses for the
prosecution, rather than for the purpose Of proving abb
The defendant merely excepted the charge Of the Court
the law u ab but made request the Court
charge that he defense did include abb or TO limit the
issue otherwise 70 exclude the question Of abb
Counsel parties request charge Jury
questions involved. and the Court may IF k motion
charge the jury upon any point Of law involved in the trial
The Court IN this instance charged the jury motion
thar a IN issue and charged the law accordingly and the
question s was this point involved in the case
An aib II criminal evidence the defendants showing
under his plea Of guilty and without special that
when the criminal thing done he other place
where he could not Be the doer.
Bishop New Criminal Proc. Sec. 1861
A prisoner accused person said up abb when
be alleges that the time when the oense with which he Is
charged committed, he elsewhere that Is different
Place from that IN which committed Il proved, OF
course complete ansTer 10 the charge
Am & Eng Enc Of Law 45+
The place. where the alleged delivery OF the opium made
the premises Of the defendant The evidence Of the
prosecutions witnesses showed thar the delivery made In
the evening the yard the defendant by the defendant
himself Mssi- The opum consisted Of % small pack
ages In big I'm box and H0shna handed lLasu IN the
yard outside Hozhina house; that Iwaa and brought
Ihe box and handed II Hosns II the yard Iwata coming
from the street.
The defendant and his testified that Nsui came TO
HoInas house which s1a cottage. with but
three small and that neither Ivata Hoshina Masu
any time left the IN fact any OF the
witnesses while Masui the house but al re-
NAMED the psrIor-and when Masu took his departure he
hft alone and OF those present with him.
nd lWata Hoina the yard with Masui
That al the except Mas remained Hoshina house for
hour after Masu left, and out until II
O'Clock, p n when Iwata and his home. There
also evidence Of what took place IN the paro Of Hoshna
tending show thar neither Iwaa nor Hohina could have
gone into the yard with Masui that evening.
The effect OF such testimony certainly TO show an abb
Tor tends show that Hoshina IN the ward with
Mas any during the OF lasui and II 50 the
transaction alleged could have taken place for Hoshina
would then have been place elsewhere than that OF the
alleged place q oens and thus attempting 70 account for
al his Whereabouts and all his actions during the time OF Mazus
visit but place different from that TESTIFIED to bv Mazu
the Court fully justified using discretion IN giving
n IL charge the law q abb.
Exceptions OverTuled-
4tforney-GegeraT IT. D. Smith and DeDpty 4ttorretGen-
eruI E. p Lose for prosecution