The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-11-13

Penal Code Chapter 49, Larceny
Penal Code, Chapter Burglary and house breaking
We of the opinion that the charge sufficiently forth
the oense of embezzement in accordance with the Hawaiian
irreconcIabe difference Eng
lisH and Hawaiian versions defendants
the Hawaiian translation word for word of the
English version an Interpretation and fully
Hawaiian the meaning and intent forth the English
version.
There are no common law ofenses known to our law all are
statutory and charge of oense made substantially in
accordance with the language of the penal good and
sufficient
I'd Exceptions The defendant had has the right appeal
and the right have his tried de and the Circuit Court
has right dismiss the said appeal without hearing
the for the prosecution and defense de
3rd Exception The defendant and is entitled to be
tried by jury and to have his appeal fully heard and
determined by the Circuit Court. The right of appeal is
right that exists by law established by judicial precedent and
and the defendant be deprived of except by
These two exceptions overruled They settled
the law of this country by the of
The queen T. Femdndee, s Haw. 273.
The Government Urd Haw 42S.
where the Court held that where pronounced
the defendants plea OF guilty to charge within the summary
jurisdiction of the Police and District Court and appeal
taken the issue of guilty or not guilty not before the
appellate Court In fact the issue in criminal made
by defendants plea of guilty and when the plea guilty
there issue before the Court unless the question of
mitigation of sentence be called issue.
The defendant of right cannot have trial de in the
Circuit Court, have his plea of guilty stricken from the
record be withdrawn in the Circuit Court and the
plea of not guilty entered
defendant further moved be allowed withdraw
his plea and plead guilty the ground that he did
understand charge District Court which given
in the Hawaiian language the defendant being Chinese,
and other forth in his affidavit, to wtthe sub
defendants affidavit shows that defendant Chinese;
ignorant of the English language; not represented by
COUNSEL did not understand the charge; did not plead guilty
embezzement but only owing debt of $3.50 prose
cutting Witness that complaining witness acted interpreter
that he has good defense in the merits.
The prosecution filed adav of S. r. Hapuku, the
District Magistrate of Lhue; of S. K. Kaeo and j. III. Kawi,
lawyers who knew defendant for and the
cutting witness All Chuck. These afdavs specifically
adict that of defendant and show that all proceedings incu
ding the charge and plea in the Hawaiian language that
spoke ueny; that the prosecuting witness acted
as interpreter defendant declared the Magistrate
that he understood the charges made and plead guilty in
Hawaiian fully understanding what he charged with.
The of the District Magistrate also shows the charge
and all proceedings have been in the Hawaiian language
The unsupported affidavit and the facts alleged therein of the
defendant prevail face of the other afdavts and
record 1t certainly within the sound discretion of the
Circuit Judge refuse the motion quah and refuse allow
withdrawal of plea of guilty by defendant Exception over
Fourth Exception. The Circuit Court had power dis
miss the appeal mheard.
We are opinion that power dismiss
appeals proper where the appeal properly per-
fected and also where appellant refuses prosecute
his appeal Where plea of not guilty and judgment thereon
entered in the District Court criminal within ursd
ton and appeal taken hererom the Circuit Court it
appeal in mitigation and the Circuit Judge should
called and the defendant appear before him.
and such hear and determine the grounds that may be
presented mitigation the defendant does appear
prosecute his appeal the appeal can be dismissed
The defendant right appeal for mitigation of
the Circuit Court after he has pleaded guilty in the lower
plea guilty admits the facts charged consequently
there issue of fact for the jury pass upon becomes
question the appellate decide from the circumstances
presented whether the excessive
The Government I. MIRA, Iiaw. 428.
before shows, the Circuit Court
ruled the motion of defendant the stricken from
the calendar and the appeal dismissed.
Explanations orally given by the AtoneyGeneral and
the defendant which place the such light
that feel justified in this particular however
making way precedent in remandng the to the
Circuit Court renstae the its calendar and to hear
the grounds mitigation of sentence, and do
order.
4torncyGencyal ". O. Smith and Deputy AHo,mey-Ge.
crdI f. p. Dole for prosecution.
A. Ddris for defendant.