The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-11-04

based on the ground that the jury had
been improperly drawn. He alleged in
his motion that the venire was not
open venire facias, but was directed to
the High Sheriff or his deputy, but was
not served by the High Sheriff but by
Chillingworth and McGurn
1t was further set out that the fifty
names from which the grand jury was
picked, were drawn by p D. Kellet. Jr.
and that he did not exercise a fair and
impartial and personal discretion in
gated such selection to George Sea and
George Lucas. 1t is further charged
that the names were selected only from
Honolulu, and not from the Island of
Oahu is a whole and that the Hawai-
ian race was Disseminated against. the
said James H. Boyd being a member of
that race. A further objection was
that the drawing should have been by
Henry Smith, as chief clerk of the SUI
preme Court, and that the names were
taken from the tax and registration
lists. while the law does not require q
grand juror to be either a voter or a
tax payer. II was further set out that
the drawing should have been one hun
dred names instead of fifty and that all
these things tend to the manifest
wrong, injury and oppression of the
said James H. Boyd, now here in his
proper person, and violate his rights
and privileges under the Constitution
of the United States, and particularly
under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, and Section SO of the
Organic Act of this Territory, and the
laws of this Territory. 4
Humphreys said he desired no argu-
ment, unless the Territory did, and
Deputy Attorney General Cathcart say
ing he had nothing to say, Judge De
Bolt promptly overruled the motion.
Following an assignment of the civil
calendar to Judge Robinson and the
eXcusing of certain grand jurors,
Humphreys again arose and said he
wished to challenge the array before it
was sworn, for the reasons given in his
motion, and also for the reason that
the power and jurisdiction of the court
is vested in three judges and not in one,
and consequently Judge De Bolt did not
have the power to charge the grand
jury.
Judge De Bolt denied the challenge
and proceeded to charge the jury.
While reading the last page of his
charge, Judge De Bolt was again in
terrupted by Humphreys, who said he
again desired to challenge the grand
jury and hoped that the Supreme
Court of the United States would take
the liberty of dissenting from your
honor
George Davis who had just entered,
said he wanted to challenge the jury
also on behalf of B. H. Wright, on the
same grounds, adding that he hadn't
seen the motion. He said that the court
had no power to divide itself and that
the statute was exceeded in the as
sumption of this power. The challenge
was promptly denied in each instance
Then Davis made the challenge on
behalf of A D. Thompson, the tax clerk
charged with embezzlement, and it was
also denied. When some one told the
attorney that Thompson had already
been indicted by the last grand jury he
withdrew his challenge.
OTHER CRIMINAL MATTERS.
The transition cases. six Of them,
went over for the term, because OF the
appeal pending in the United States
Supreme Court in the Osaki Mankichi
case.
w T. Rawlins was appointed to de-
fend Umemoto, and S. H. Derby to de-
fend o. Carpa.
Cecil Brown withdrew from the case
of Enoka, as he leaves for San Fran
cisco tomorrow. C. F. Clemmons was
appointed in his place.
Judge De Bolt is disqualified in the
case of the Territory VS.. Yoweil and
the case was assigned to Judge Rob-
inson. The same disposition was made
Of Territory VS.. Lin Choy.
PETIT JURY CALLED.
The trial jury was called in the af-
ternoon. Guy Kelley, T. F. Richards
and Chang Chow were excused for the
term.