The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-06-04
HABEAS CORPUS
ONCE AGAIN
ANOTHER LEGAL POINT THAT
INVOLVES A GENERAL
JAIL DELIVERY.
DOMINGO FERREIRAS HABEAS
CORPUS WRIT.
Domingo Ferreiras Habeas Corpus
Writ-Legality of the High Sheriffs
Selection of Place of Imprisonment,

sDavis and Brooks, the habeas corpus
team, this morning brought up a new
point in the Domingo Ferreira case,
making a contention under which every
prisoner in oahu Jail is to be regarded
as illegally held. The writ issued in
the Ferreira case was on the ground
that he had been tried by Gear while
Humphreys was holding court, and it
was cOntended that under Gears deci-
sion that two judges could not hold
court at the same time, the trial was
invalid.
When the case came up this morning
Davis had a new point to bring out.
There were various pyrotechnics of lam
guage in Davis presentation of the
matter, including criticisms of press re-
ports of his 'impetuosity" but he final
ly buckled down to business and declar-
ed that the mittimus in the case of
Ferreira was void, because it failed to
say in what prison the defendant was
to be confined. AS every prisoner con-
fined in the Territory, in any Jail, is
held under a similar mittimus, the con-
tentiOn was somewhat startling, and
Judge Gear, who has been up against
the habeas corpus teams for some
months was much concerned.
"I'll release them if it's the law" de-
clared the judge, settling himself to
listen to Davis oratory, with now and
then an interruption from Assistant At
torney General Douthitt, who had a.
Hawaiian Supreme court decision which
he thought settled the whole matter.
Davis quoted a lot of Mainland deci-
sions to the effect that a mittimus must
state where the defendant it refers to
is to be confined. While Davis read de-
cisions Gear read the Hawaiian code on
his own account, and he announced that
he had failed to find any provision in
4. .szl. L,
could put a prisoner in one jai! or an
other. Douthitt admitted that there
was no such statute
The High Sheriff can put a prisoner
wherever he wants to put him, in HilO
or anywhere else, under the Hawaiian
law?'' asked Judge Gear.
Douthitt admitted that such was the
case, and Gear said that the question
was whether such procedure was
within the law. Upon the settlement of
this question rests the validity of every
mittimus in existence here.
The assistant attorney general pro-
duGed a Hawaiian Supreme court de-
ciston, under which held tnat it was
net nCCe ssary, in a case of capital pun
iShment, that the time or place o. the
execution be set forth, and it was
claimed under this that a mittimus
naming no place of imprisonment was
all right.
Brooks argued the en- banc decis on
proposition. He stated that Gear had
already held that only one judge could
sit at time, and that the trial of Fer
reira, when two judges were sitting
was clearly Illegal under such decision
The new point took up so much time
however, that there was little disl us
sion of this question.
Judge Gear finally took recess tC
two o'clock this aftern )n, to give the
attorneys time to look up lay on The
points iuV Olved, and the second jSdgt
is once more up against d 1dr-reacking
habeas corpus question.