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

INDEFINITE bond
being required is equivalent pardon of the defendant
which power only be exercised by the Executive in whom
the pardOnno power The State 1bby 43 n j. L. 49,
cited authority for the contrary proposition In this
defendant in 1877 convicted of the oense of maintaining
nuisance and the court after verdict ordered that
be suspended payment of of the
long defendant shall keep the cuver complained of clear
and unoruced and shall do whatever else may be necessary
abate the nuisance of which he stands Convicted The
defendant paid the costs and abaed the nuisance subsequent
imposition in of sentence imprisonment on the ground
that defendant did not keep the cuver clear held be
authorized because the order made by in 1877
tanamount judgment that defendant should abate the
nuisance and pay and that the expression suspenng
sentence informal and did the imposition of
second sentence for the same ofense
The mainly relied upon by the prosecution is Common
ceaHh Doedicdns ball. 115 Mass 1873 In this Gray,
Co., said, ct has long been practice in this Com
monwealt after verdict of guilty in criminal case, when the
is satisfied that by of exenuatng circumstances
of the tendency of question of law like before
higher other sufficient public Justice does
require immediate sentence order with the of
the defendant and of the attorney for the Commonwealth and
upon such terms the court its discretion may impose that
the Indictment be laid le and this practice has been
recognized by statute The statute referred to is that of 1862
Chap 49, Sec CO. which provides that shall be ad
le unless written motion is filed setting forth the
~hy public Justice requires different disposition of the cae
supported by affidavit of the facts.
In the before neither long established practice
statute justes the laying of file, subject to the
courts order to bring up the for judgment.
In later case, Commonwealth Maloney AS Mass 2O5
trial Justices court the defendant plead guilty. June g.
1885, charge and the continued for sentence"
August 7, 1885, which time the continued ns
upon payment of by the defendant be again called for
sentence upon notice the defendant On October 1885,
upon notice to the defendant the called for sentence
and continued October 49, 1885, when the defendant
sentenced. He appealed from the sentence The court held
that he amenabe by the trial justice, and
said inter ALA he indefinite postponement of before
it is, in effect the indefinite postponement of the court 'He
has jurisdiction suspend and revive his WILL and
court before him.. The allowed trial justice post
pone by continuance for days. and the court
said there nothing in the statute which gave trial justice
authority settle criminal before him by receiving the
from the defendant and dcagng him without Judgment
and without continuance on his agreement present himself
for any time notice Apart from the abuse
which such power would be liable the functions and
of proceeding of justices of the peace in regard offenders
prescribed by show that intended that they
should have the general power of putting the prisoner convicted
before them probation by indefinitely holding the conviction
him. is done higher courts by putting the Indictment
'on file.'o
In favor of the power to indefinitely postpone sentence is
State Crook, reported in 20 L. r. a. 260 On CO. The
said he practice of making order where parties
convicted submit criminal charge that the Judgment
be suspended the of the costs that to
be somewhat peculiar but must be admitted
that adoption has proved very auta both bringing about
the reformation petty offenders and in the suppression epec
tally of certain classes of oese The exercise of this dcre
onay has heretofore been questioned and the bene
fetal effects of its udcous have been made commend
it both the judges and the people We search in vain for
direct authority from the other States aid deter
mining the precise meaning of such ORDERS because has not
been the practice to make them elsewhere in this way
The strongest in favor of the power to indefinitely post
pone sentence is People rel Forsyth Court OF SESSIONS
al n Y 2SS S94 where held that "a statute which
in authorizes of criminal jurisdiction to suspend
certain after conviction is not voave of the
State Constitution giving the governor the power to grant
preves and pardons This says in its decision that
Supreme Courts of criminal Jurisdiction have by the
law the inherent authority suspend sentence But this
does touch upon the question whether justices courts have
this power.
Against the power discussed here is Z. s. Wilson, 46 Fed
R. 4S where Judge Beatty of the O. s. Circuit Court held that
have power suspend sentences except for short
periods pending the determination of other motions
sderaons arising the cause after verdict When the court
has by order indefinitely suspended sentence cannot thereafter
and especially at subsequent revoke such order and
proceed to judgment by sentencing the prisoner
In Webb SO Wis 354 $685. the court imposed sentence
and directed that the fine paid forthwith the execution
of the of imprisonment be suspended until the further
order of the court Held to be without authority 10 the
nffnc tic Stntor 20