Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-06-06

thereby purged himself of the contempt
cannot avail in this collateral proceed
ing, considering that the lower court
found against him and considering all
lde circumstances under which that
finding was made. assuming that in our
opinion the finding was erroneous. We
must In these proceedings regard the
publication as relating to the pending
case.
Thus II Is not clear whether the court
found that the publication or circula-
ton took place in the court room or
not, and it would seem to be immater-
ial whether 1t was in the court room
or in the adjoining hall or room, II the
other necessary conditions were pres
ent. II Is not clear whether the court
was in session or not. Perhaps thai
also would be immaterial. II 1t was
during a recess merely or temporary
adjournment from one day to the next,
and If the other essential features were
present. 1t is not clear whether the
| petitioner had anything to do with the
/ publication or circulation In or near
the court room or not. This is very
| material, unless the petitioner 4 Ould
be regarded as responsible in law for
the publication and circulation there
as a natural and probable consequence
Of the publication and circulation of i
paper or such general circulation in
the city where the trial was pending.
Some Nice Questions.
Whether he should be thus held re-
sponsible is a nice question, the affirm
alive being held by very respectable
authority, and no argument or author
4 ity having been presented on behalf of
, the petitioner in support of the mega
tive. Whether the decision in the Bush
case which. II followed, requires us to
remand the petitioner to custody, in
any view that can properly be taken OF
/ the case on the evidence, should be re-
versed. Is also. to say the least, nice
! question-upOn which no argument has
been presented on behalf of the petit
toner, although that decision is most
strenuously urged contra.
IT, as is the case in some other juriS-
dictions, contempt cases were appeal
abel under our statutes, and this case
were before us on appeal, or, II tho
statute required the court in adjudging
n contempt to explicitly set forth all
intermediate necessary findings upon
which the final judgment Is based. the
result might perhaps be different. But
in the absence of such findings or OF an
affirmative showing OF want OF jurisdiC-
ton either by the record or by matter
outside of the record. the judgment
| cannot be set aside in a collateral pro-
ceeding.
Three Judges Regular.
The fact that all three Judges of the
| Circuit Court sat at the hearing of the
contempt case does not make the pro-
Ceedings void. Whether they might
/ properly all sit as n court, 1t Is I'M
| necessary to say. For, although dur
| Ing the earlier stages of the hearing
! they seem to have regarded themselves
/ together as constituting the court, yet
the part that the Judges other than
the presiding Judge took was unimport.
ant and was Joined in by the presiding
Judge. and before the end Of the case
the view was apparently taken that tha
/ two former were there in an advisory
capacity only, and the presiding Judge
alone finally pronounced judgment in
form as IL he alone constituted tho
court.
The case as a whole presents many
fertile themes for comment, but II ~
unnecessary to discuss them.
The petitioner is remanded to tho
custody of the High Sheriff.
Smith & Lewis and Andrews, Peters
& Andrade, for the petitioner.
George A. Davis, contra.