The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-09-12

that effect We may add that statute Civ c. Sec $500
under which the appeals in the Kaufman and Wong
were entertained was substantially the that Civ L. Sec
1909 under which the appeals taken but there
then no such words subject appeal Section 1857
Wheh conferred the jurisdiction habeas corpus The
cooper case up but the said per Mr. Chief
Justice Allen that at would been more in accordance
Win our practice to have taken appeal 1t be that this
Court would appeal prisoners had been
discharged and had escaped from jurisdiction but in the
present cases they still in custody and the appeals would
seem supersedas these as in other cases by the
provisions of Section II of the Act of Civ l. Sec 1880
The statute of 1s47 (Ch g. Art Sec 81 is relied ON to show
that the practice of entertaining appeals in cases of this char
acter IN the earlier Hawaiian depended express stat
ute But not only that repealed many years
any OF the reported cases above cited decided the
ton there made of habea corpus cases was with reference
original cases in the Superior did not relate to appeals
IN habeas either the Superior Court or to the
Supreme Court
ne case OF IN re Daras II Haw. 594, cited show that
no appeal hes In contempt Notwithstanding general
language OF the statute that appeals allowable from call de-
cons &c. and that therefore habeas corpus cases may like
wise be excepted by implication The remark of the court in
that case this subject although only dcaa was perfectly
true The thing actually decided in Onomea Sugar
Co. dustin, Haw But contempt cases are not habea
corpus cases. They of peculiar and the
the onoea case was based partly such peculiar nature and
partly on the language of the about be to
which expressly dalowed appeals classes of
1t contended however, that these
provision in Section 70 of the Act of Nohng herein
contained shall be permit appeal to be taken from
order by any Judge Magistrate allowing warrant
writ other process for any other order of like
This provision opinion does in
habeas It relates preliminary pro-
of
acter Onomea Sugar Co. Justin Haw 6O4; Makalei o.
He Haw 169 1t would exclude an appeal from an order
allowing disaowing the writ in the first
appeal from the final order remandug dschargng the p
This provision of the has force during the
entire period covered by the above cited appeals
have been entertained and supposed stand in
the way of such appeals
Our attention called also Section 1874 of the Civil Laws
although this does be relied upon 1t provides
that No person who has been discharged upon writ of bas
corpus shall be again imprisoned restrained for the same
cause unless he shall be indicted therefor thereof
committed for of ball. by Record having
jurisdiction of the unless after discharge for default
Of proof for material default the commitment in
criminal he shall be again arrested sufficient proof and
committed by legal process for the same ofense" ~
This section evidently relates final discharge-to dis
charge not to Judgment Of discharge which has been
by an appeal prisoner discharged within the meaning
of this clause until his finally determined the iudg
men below arrested by the appeal and finally on
appeal the discharged within the meaning of this
section This section apparently has relation appeals
does not mention appeals The habeas corpus Act silent
the subject of appeals the intention had been to forbid
appeals in which prisoners discharged or any
very different much simpler and direct language
would have been used add that the Act of 1892 which
coners the jurisdiction habeas corpus Subject APP
pear and allows appeals from "aH decisions &c. later
date than the section question: which Section 80 of Chap
Ter 80 of the Laws of 1870
The records in these before precisely
they always appeals from Circuit Judges Cham
ber The supposng otherwise from installing
these for that up exceptions from Circuit
Courts. These appeals from Circuit Judges Chambers
exceptions from Circuit Courts