The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-02-11

doubtedy the preceden under the law require this
Dds State Backford 90 The words usually employed in
the conclusion of the Indictment that "a B. him the said c.
D. did etc. kill and murder etc The deceased named
III this part of the Indictment But the allegations pre-
vous to the conclusion forth that Kapea the day and
the place mentioned of his deliberate premetated malice
thought shot Dr. Smith nctng wound of which he then and
there died The legal inference from the facts
IL the conclusion of the Indictment that defendant committed
the crime of murder In the first degree No facts
cited in the conclusion would therefore necessary
prove the conclusion In this country there are
law ofenses Why then should it be essential that ndict-
men contain all the ingredients required by the law?
All the Constitution Cart y requires that the Indictment ode
scribe the offense The Criminal Procedure Act,
Penal Laws, p 1882 precbes that no Indictment for any
otense shall be held insufficient for of
any matter unnecessary be proved" cor for of
proper formal conclusion" See Exams People, Mich
27 State ONeH, % Iowa. 272; State Stanley 33 id.
500; State Huff, II New 40. This passed in
order temper the rigorous requirements of the law
indictments, invented by who stood between despotc
aud cruel and accused persons and allowed them
oophos of escape they having scarcely rights in defense
The defendant arragned and convicted upon Indictment
which in its second described his oense. This be
ing good the proper conclusion vtiatng it,
have no occasion to upon the constutonay of the first
The pleaded guilty and the court proceeded
get jury Defendants exceptions numbered s. g. and g.
all to the courts rulings upon questions the qualifca
tons of certain persons called Jurors The persons ques
ton Ie Keaunu w. Kappa D. H. Kahanamoku, J. Ke-
alohaki and NJ Keohokaole None of these persons
the trial. having been excluded by
the challenged peremptoy by the prosecution de-
fense and their perenptory
lenges.
The defendants that the objections competency
of the juror Kel Keauui invalid and that he quail
fed and improperly excluded Also that the juror
aoak shown be incompetent but passed by the
court and the defendant obliged challenge him peremp
tory But the conclusion of the examinations the chal
enge of the defendants exhausted they
plain. Queen Leong Man, Haw. $40 NJ Keohokalole,
D. H. Kahanamoku and w. KAPPA severally paed for
cause by the prosecution; but matter coming
the knowledge of the prosecution either made voluntarily by the
jurors drawn croseamnation to- their relationship
to OF the defendants to having been conversed with by
of of the defendants they reexamined and w.
KAPPA and d. H. kaanamou excluded by the and
NJ keohokaole peempory challenged by the prosecution
Further objections made the examination of w.
KAPPA After he had been excluded by the the
ton allowed in the presence of the jury question him
closely the facts of conversation between him and
Paa said be relative of of the defendants the result
showed that the conversation harmless and
how mejudced the jury. People Dmrant, 116 Cal TO
The Am Eng. Ency Law says these points 'In the
trial of challenges the favor the decision of the Judge
the Indifference of the final and cannot be reviewed
From this it is natural hold that judge may in his dscre
ton exclude from the panel juror who legally diqual
fed sit and that exceptions will not lie the act u Ency
$50.
Thompson Merriam Juries Sec 271 expresses the
follows 'Where has been tried by impair
ta jury, although the Judge the application of of the
and against the of the other have rejected
juror for of questionable sucency such rejection
does afford ground complaint if justice has been done
in premises In other words while the dsaowance of
of challenge viii reversal of the Judgment inn
proper allowance of challenge will necessarily have
this effect qualified Juror may be rejected, and still jury
of lawful against whom there is objection may be OBJ
taned'
Cases sustaining this view cited and very
See Sutton 4. For, 50 Wis 531. The discretion vested in
large and its action subject revision unless
law is violated the exercise of gross and injurious dis
cretion is shown.
The second objection is that the prosecution
lowed challenge peempo after had accepted
them There authority that the not bound to suffer
the proceed the jury has been empaneed and
when informed fact going the disqualification of
from which probable that the verdict be aside
if evidence has been introduced Thompson Merriam
Jure Sec 273 and cited We need not go far
this. The jury But thee occurring to the
prosecution for Directing to the not known to be
existing when the accepted why the
granting of perepto challenge at that stage objection
able.
State Potter Conn 166 is cited by defendants
against this but that the had told counsel for
ofnnLla, IL ona1tnrr acartai