The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-10-30
JUDD, CD, FREAR AND WHITING, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT, BY WHITING, ].

The defendant was convicted a charge unlawuly sell
ing opium the Circuit Court First Circuit and brings his
bill of exceptions this Court claiming in the charge
of the presiding Judge to the jury
The Judge charged jury the law of ab the language
the charge however objected and the law charged
admitted sound law but defendant claims that the defense
of abi by him and IN issue IN the
and that he injured and reudiced by the Court consrug
the defendants evidence offered to prove an ab whereas de-
merely dscedit the witnesses for the
prosecution and offered for other purpose.
The evidence certified up appears have been presented
generally without limitation for special purposes and
where does appear that defendant intended or offered to
restrict discredtng testimony of witnesses for the
prosecutions than the purpose of proving ab
The defendant merely excepted the charge of the Court
as TO the law of ab but made no request the Court
defense did include abb limit the
issue otherwise exclude the question of aibi
Counsel for parties may request the Court to charge the jury
questions involved and the Court of its motion
charge the jury upon point of law involved in the trial
The this instance charged the jury its motion
and charged the law accordingly and the
question is this point involved in the
An abb in criminal evidence, the defendants showing
under his plea of guilty and without special averment that
the criminal thing done he at other place
where he could be the doer.
Bishop New Criminal Proc.
prisoner person said aib when
he alleges that the time when the oense with which he
charged committed he elsewhere that is in different
place that in which it committed If proved is of
a complete to the charge
l Am. q Eng. Enc of Law 454
The place. where the alleged delivery of the made
was premises defendant The evidence of the
prosecutions witnesses showed that the delivery made in
evening the yard of the defendant by the defendant
ages big tin box and Hoshna handed Maui in the
oslnas that Iwata and brought
the box and handed it Hoshna in the yard Iwaa coming
from the street.
The defendant and his witnesses testified that Masui to
Hosinas house, which small cottage, with but
three small and that neither Iwat HOsna Masui
any time went left the in fact OF the
witnesses while Masui the house, but all
manned in the parlorand when Masu took his departure he
left alone and of those present with him.
did wata Hoshina into the yard with Maui
That all the except Naui remained Hona house for
over hour after Masu left and until II
o'clock D. when Iwaa and his wife home. There
also evidence of what took place in the paror of Hona
tending show that neither Iwata Hosna could have
gone into the yard with Masu that evening.
The effect of such testimony is certainly show abi
for tends show that Hoshna not in the yard with
Masui any time during the visit of Masu, and if the
transaction alleged could have taken place. for Hoshna
would then have been place elsewhere than that of the
alleged place of oen and in thus attempting for
all his whereabouts and all his actions during the time of Masu
visit place different from that testified by Masui
fully justified in using its discretion in giving
in It's charge the law of abb.
Exceptions overruled.
Acknowledgement ". o. Smith and Deputy Attorney-Gen
eraI e. II. Dole for prosecution.
III o6orfoon for 1ofon 6ont