Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1898-02-04
The Two MurdererS Of DR.. ]. K,
Smith Must Hang.
All The Exceptions Taken by Defendants
Attorneys Are Unanimously 0Verruled
by The Court.


noon to allow of more than the
bare fact that all the exc ap'iors
had been overruled being printed
in this paper.
The decision is from the pen of
the Chief Justice and is concurred
in by his associates. 1t is quite
elaborate and contains an exhaus
tive citation of authorities to sub
stantiate the ruling of the Court
on the legal pniuts Involved. The
opinion concludes with this de-
cisive statement: "On a careful
examination of all the evidence
and papers in the case we find the
defendants had fair trial aud
every reasonable opportunity
afforded them for their defense,
and the law which has been vio-
lated NUT take it's course"
The legal points decided in this
case are impor ant as laying down
the law for the trial of murder
cases in the future. They are
contained in the syllabus of the
decision as follows:
l. Special terms of the Circuit
Court when called in pursuance
of and in accordance with the
sta ute, have jurisdiction to try all
indictments presented, whether
presented at Il previous regular
term or not and though the &C
cused had been committed to he
tried at a t-rm subsequent to the
special term. District magistrates
should commit accused for trial
at the "next term" of the Ci cult
Court and not designate the
date of the term.
2. An indictment for murder
in the first degree describing the
off.nse is not fatally def, ciive be
cause in its conclusion it does not
name the deceased.
3. Where one has been tried by
an impartial jury, the disallowance
of juror for cause of question
able sutficiency is not ground for
reversal; nor when juror once
accepted is thereafter challenged
peremptorily; nor when once ac-
cepted he is recalled to answer
questions suggested either by the
juror himself or from the examin-
alton of other jurors, and is there
fore challenged peremptorily or
excluded by the Court, provided
the jury is not sworn and no evil
dence has been taken.
4. 1t is not reversible error fer
the Court to decline to order the
Marshal to allow counsel for de
fense to have a private interview
with certain witnesses for the pro.
seeu,ion who are in custody of the
Marshal held under a statutory
commitment.
5. Questions on the redirect
may be allowed 10 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 testi
mony.
6. Where evidence has been
introduced on behalf of defense
without objection and undisputed
by the prosecution showing the
commission of larceny by a wit
ness for the prosecution of the
goods of one of the family of de-
fendauts and the demand of a
certain sum of money to stop
prosecution was paid by the said
witness, it is harmless error to
forbid further evidence 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.
7. Admiss ions of a defendant
that he opposed and forbade the
commission of murder is admissi-
BILE as evidence of his knowledge
of the intention to commit the
murder.
8. On the trial of a person for
the offeDse of murder in the first
degree, whore 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 believed the