The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-09-22
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, c. J.
RF,FORE. JUDD. c. j. FREAR AND WHITING, u.

The tried for the oense of seduction the
August term 1895 Court First Circuit in which
jury disagreed and second trial in said Court at the
thereof November found guilty and sentenced
on the November Within six months, towit the
14l May of sued by the defendant
The assignments of
That the prosecuted III the name ana by
authority of the Republic of Hawaii required by Sec
the Constitution but prosecuted by private cou
sell and it does appear the record that 1t authorized
by the Attorney General.
The entitled in the District Court where originated
the "RepubHc of Hdraii Edtcard Oodcdrd it is there
fore the of the Republic Private counsel
prosecuted They noted the minutes for the pros
and assisting the prosecution IN
another The authority the Attorney General the
the Republic be presumed have been
given question raised here whether prosecution
nv no Instituted AGAINST the will of the Attorney General
We find III erro here.
All the remaining assignments of various parts
the charge of the Court and rulings made during the trial
Counsel for the prosecution moved that these assignments be
quashed the ground that of the alleged errors can be
made subject of unless embodied in bill of
exceptions up within the time fixed by statute rules
signed by the Judge which done IN thus
Undoubtedly this method is convenient and would give
Appellate Court concise form the exact questions sought
be raised and it sustained by authority See Po1oeH o"
ADDeIate Proceedings But having statute defining
error Chap XCV, Laws of 1892 it must control u.s.
Section of this Act reads "For all purposes of this Act the
record deemed include all peadings, motions, notes
exception exhibits clerks magistrates notes of
proceedings and desired by the plaintiff III error trans
cript of the evidence in the case.
We do at the proposition that counsel stand
by and without objection allow the Court to commit errors OF
if in time and the judgment be not eX
ecued ask the Appellate Court to correct the alleged errors
exceptions properly neted and allowed may
considered part the record which writ OF error
based, though brought the form OF bill and
certified by the Judge.
Tpon the same reason the charge of the Court any part
thereof if duly excepted be made part of the record
upon which error may assigned of Chap V of the
of makes the charge instructions OF the Court
part record 1t may be argued that this statute having
no relation of Error would not be sufficient OF
itself bring charge of the Court into the record for the
purposes error certainly may become when
ton to noted under the Writ of Error Act IN
Sergeant Rawle D. 29S, DOcHg Bdtdcin holds that the
Legislature having required the charge of the Court be made
in writing and filed with the record in the cause super
sedes the necessity bill of exceptions. In this Chief
Justice Tghman the Act of the Assembly directs the
opinion of Judge filed record becomes then
part and being the Superior Court must of
necessity take notice of 1t. An OPINION hled by positive
law of the body of the record and must
remain
We have carefully charge the Court and the
made upon We need only advert to
Evidence was introduced the defense of repeated of
sexual intercourse with several persons within year
prior the alleged seduction This if believed would show the
nchase of the prosecuting witness prior the act
upon which the based In rebutta she denied
of offered evidence
that reformed The charge of the Court upon this
was follows:
Many of the statutes making seduction criminal in other
countries require addition the provisions contained III
statute that the woman shall be of chae character
This seems to have pmposey omitted from statute,
question of chastity of the witness always
involved for seduction COR instance
apparent every that prostitute could not be seduced
The law made protect the chastity OF those who are trying
o live properly :
"v the expression Chastity of the complaining witness
do not intend for you understand that for her
sexual intercourse with any prior to the
alleged seduction would violate the spirit we'll the
language statute hold that should not be
L. vubOo in