The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-02-04
They MUST HANG
Exceptions Of Kapea and
Kaio OVerru1ed.
Supreme Court Decided Yesterday
That the Law Must Take
Its Course.

The last hope Of Kapea and Kaio,
who were convicted, the one of muir
dering DR.. J. K. Smith of Kauai. and
the other of having been accessory be-
fore the fact, was taken from them
yesterday, when the Supreme Court
handed down a unanimous decision,
overruling the exceptions taken by
the counsel for the condemned men to
the decision Of Judge Perry.
The opinion is lengthy and dis
cusses in detail each point made by the
defense in the exceptions. Numerous
cases are cited to substantiate the
opinion. At it's conclusion the Court
states: "On a careful examination OF
all the evidence and papers in the
case we find the defendants had a
fair trial and every reasonable OPP
portunity afforded them for their de-
Tense and the law which has been
violated must take its course"
The Court makes ten points in its
decision as follows, covering all the
points of the exception:
1. Special terms Of the Circuit Court
when called in pursuance of and in
accordance with the statute, have jur-
isdiotion to try all indictments pre-
scented. whether presented at a previ-
Gus regular term or not and though
the accused had been committed to be
tried at a term subsequent to the
special term. District magistrates
should commit accused for trial at the
next term" of the Circuit Court and
not designate the date of the term.
2. An Indictment for murder in the
first degree describing the offense is
not fatally defective because in its
conclusion it does not name the de-
ceased.
3. Where has been tried by an i'm
partial jury, the disallowance of a
juror for cause Of questionable
sufficiency is not ground for reversal ;
nor when a juror once accepted is
thereafter challenged peremptorily;
nor when once accepted he is recalled
to answer questions suggested either
| by the juror himself or from the eX-
animation of other jurors, and is there
| fore challenged peremptorily or ex-
Guided by the Court, provided the jury
| is not sworn and no evidence has
| been taken.
4. 1t is not reversible error for the
| Court to decline to order the Marshal
| to allow counsel for defense to have a
private interview with certain witness
es for the prosecution who are in GUS
| tody of the Marshal held under a stat
utory commitment.
| 5. Questions on the redirect may be
allowed in the discretion of the Court
| to enable the witness to make his
meaning clear, though not directly
connected with any matter brought out
on the cross-eXamination, the witness
having admitted that he had told some
untruths in his previous testimony.
! 6. Where evidence has been intro
duced on behalf Of defense without
objection and undisputed by the prose
cution showing the commission of lar
ceny by witness for the prosecution
of the goods of one of the family of
| defendants and the demand of a
certain sum of money to stop prosecu-
ton was paid by the said witness, it is
harmless error to forbid further evil
dence on the facts of the larceny, there
being no express proof of i'll will or
bias on the part of the witness towards
or against the owner of the goods
stolen.
| Z. Admissions of a defendant that
he opposed and forbade the commits
sion of murder is admissible as evil
dence of his knowledge of the inten-
ton to commit the murder.
s. On the trial of a person for the
offense of murder in the first degree,
where there is no evidence upon
which the jury can find the defendant
guilty of an offense of lesser degree
than the one charged, it is not error
to charge the jury that if they be-
lieved the evidence of the prosecution
they should find the defendant guilty
of murder in the first degree or not
guilty if they disbelieved the evidence.
9. By statute questions of law are
for the Court and the instructions of
the Court in relation to the law are
binding on the jury.
10. The statute requires that in a
capital case at least 4S hours shall in
tervene between a verdict of guilty
and the sentence. The term of the
Court would expire by limitation with
in As hours after verdict. Held, it was
not error to postpone the rendition OF
sentence to the next term Of the Court.