The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-10-19
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, c. J.

COURT BY JUDD, C. j.
The defendants were the one of adultery at
the last (June) term of the Circuit Court SECOND fe
The adultery laid having been committed on the 10Th
of April last at Pauwela, Makawao, Maui Inc exceptions
taken are first the admsbty OF evidence to prove the
marriage Pun () Puu she, Awa beng alleged
TO be married with whom sexual intercourse is charged
with Wapa she being his wife The prosecution oereo
the record of the marriage question celebrated by
Father Gulstan in book kept by Roman Catholic Church
in Waluku Maui and coming from the custody OF the priest
ho Tho narties married are described residents of
Pauwe Maui This objected the ground that the
prosecution should first prove that the person who performed
the ceremony had lawful authority to do So that Incense 10
marry had been duly issued exhibited delivered the person
performing the ceremony; that the person issuing ghe
to marry authority grant the and that the Iue
Ava and Pun identified the parties named IN the marriage
record The prosecution claimed that 1t had evidence Oh Tue
marriage.
The Court objection and the prosecution put
IN evidence marriage by Father Gulstan that VIC
tora Ava married by him IN Makawao, Maui
the 9th January, 1891 The same objections were mace
to this evidence made the former The Court admit
ted the evidence which was excepted Later the
tion the license Pun and Victoria Ava to marry
dated 9Th January 1891 given by Hao Kawaimaka sign
ING himself agent grant marriage licenses Tor the
District of Makawao Maui" and defendants counsel objected
to the introduction this license the ground that the SAID
ao Kawamaa proven be authorized to issue Suc
license and signature the license not proven
The admission of this evidence is also made ground OF eN
ception.
The exceptions should be overruled As have in
Repubc of Haicaii Knha and Muoto (ante, p D on
charge of adultery marriage must be proved by direct
The record and the certificate it in evidence required
to be made by then in force. Compiled Laws
424 Upon this matter Bishop Marriage Divorce, Vol
Sec 49, says, Where the law entusts public ocer with
the making preserving of record of public nature and
interest the presumption that he does his duty therefore,
perhaps further Also the record ev
ence of the fact book itself may be presented to the
court; certificate of the required record made by the
officer charged keeping, will be received instead
This statement of the law that certificate of marriage
admissible adopt it being sound IN principle and IN
with the practice of courts The cer1cae
priest he second paper produced) must remember
is not certificate marriage record but declaration
an person that he had soemnized the marriage
The amissbity of such certificate, under oath,
companied proofs of its delivery the time to the parties
is in many jurisdictions deemed nadmisble. See Bishop
the marriage record admissible it not to
upon the admssby of certificate OF the bare tact OF
a marriage having been performed
On the point that the prosecution prove that license
marry must be hold that this not necessary
When law upon official person duty connected
with his office and the for performance ranspres,
p1ih1d fdcie presumption is that is done Bishop,
Sec. The presumption holds good until the
contrary shown 1t therefore to produce
the license that the agent who granted
it had the requisite authority.
The further objection that there proof OF the identity
of the parties Pun and AVA who mentioned IN the
There evidence set up that the parties
lived together Pauwela, Maui and wife, for
wears after date alleged marriage also that the hs
with the officers who found the wife in
pcous relations with Wapa This went to the jury under
proof of the identity of the parties and
jury justified in finding sufficient The Ava of
Pauwela married Pun lived Pauwea with Pun, her
husband and the Pun of Pauwea pursued the defendant Waa
the aduterer of Ava his wife.
Defendants also except the Introduction of proof of
of illicit intercourse prior to that laid IN the charge, to
wit on the Sth March This evidence admitted and
the that they could convict the
defendants of adultery the Sth March, but, If they
believed the testimony they might take it into consideration
bearing upon their relations to another as to their