Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1901-04-10
HUMPHREYS UPHELD
BY SUPREME COURT
Bill for MandamuS Dis.
missed at Plaintiffs
Cost.
HAD RIGHT TO EXCUSE
JUROR ". 7. SCHMIDT
Other Means Should Have Been Used
to Enforce Payment Of Fees
Ordered For
feited.

Decision was handed down today by
the Supreme Court in the matter of the
application of w. T. Schmidt for writ
of mandamus against A. S. Humphreys,
First Judge Of the Circuit Court. The
demurrer Is sustained and the writ
dismissed with costs. The court holds:
'Mandamus as rule does not lie
to compel reversal Of an order Of an
inferior court where such order Is
within the discretion of the court las
where Juror has been excused from
further duty or where there is another
adequate remedy las where the court
has ordered a forfeiture OF the jurors
fees and the clerk has afterwards with
the approval of the court drawn them
from the treasury for the use of the
petitioner) or where demand has not
previously been made upon the'court or
Judge"
The petitioner was Juror at the
February term OF the Circuit Court.
over which Judge Humphreys presid.
ed He alleges also that the jury on
which he served in a certain case was
unable to agree. the jury standing ten
to two, the court asked who the two
were. Also that on being informed that
the petitioner and ono other were the
two, the court harshiy and cruelty
rnprimandcd them and ordered their
per dtm fees. already earned during
the term, forfeit. On these grounds a
writ Of mandamus is prayed for direct
ing the Judge to vacate the order.
THE respondent demurs on a number
of grounds. only one or two Of which
need be considered" gays the opinion.
THE order excusing the petitioner
from further duty was within the dis.
erection of the Court and clearly can
not be reversed by mandamus." The
case of Peopeo " Murray, So Cal. $50, is
referred to. "The question whether
in the present case the Judge was justi-
fG by the facts in exercising his dis
erection in the Way he did cannot DO
inquired into in these proceedings.
"As to the order FORGETTING fees for
4 services previously rendered, the petit
toner has other adequate remedies
For instance on the facts alleged, he
could recover the fees from the clerk
In an action for money had and receiv-
ed. The judges order OF forfeiture be.
ing void, would be no defense to the
clerk in such an action.
Again. no demand was made on the
Judge to reverse the order OF forfeiture
or to direct the clerk to pay over the
money and no adequate excuse is given
for not having made such a demand
On the contrary, the allegation that the
Judge. after ordering forfeiture, coun'
tersigned the statement as to the petit
toners fees would seem to indicate
that he had already come to the con
clusion. on furSher reflection, that hi
previous order was erroneous. W.
presume that the Judge would on ap
plication, direct the clerk to pay owe,
the money.
The writ is of an extraordinary ma
ture and should not issue as rul'
where there exists another adequate
remedy, or where demand has not pre-
viously been made upon the part!
against whom the writ is sought, ant
no sufficient reason appears why thes'
rules should not be applied to the pres
ent case.
The opinion is by Chief justice
Frear, Galbraith and Perry concurring
Andrews, Peter & Andrade for petit
toner; A. s. Hartwell for respondent.