Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-06-06
SUPREME COURT SUPPORTS
BY MAJORITY DECISION
RULING OF CIRCUIT JUDGES

same time. in which II was held that
an act committed in a room near the
court room and while the court was in
session was lin the presence" of the
court. II appeared that the act consist
ed of an attempt to influence one who
mad been impanelled as juror for the
term but before he was called for the
particular case. Apparently II was in
fact las appeared by the record of the
lower court, In re Cuddy, 10 Fed. X.
90, but not by the record in the Su-
preme Court committed a quarter of
q mile from the court house and when
the court was not in session. The court
said In substance that neither the pc
tition for the writ nor the part of the
record OF the lower court that was pro.
duced showed the particular locality
where the act was committed, and that
upon a collateral attack by habeas cor
pus every intendement was made in
support Of the jurisdiction of supeior
courts, and rcmanded the petitioner to
custody.
In Unsatisfactory State.
The present case is before us in o
very unsatisfactory state. The mitti-
mus seems to refer to two convictions
both, however. apparently intended to
cover the same or nearly the same
ground, the one referring for the facts
to the affidavit on which the citation
was issued, the other purporting to set
! forth the facts and among other
things. stating that the published mat
ter was false. malicious, etc, and had
/ special reference to the case on trial
and to the Judge presiding therein, and
was circulated and published in the
court room during the trial of the case
that II was calculated to and did preju
dice the minds of the jury and pre-
vent fair and impartial trial and was
| calculated to and did obstruCt the court
in the administration OF justice, and
! in its duties in the trial of the case
then pending and undetermined. What
supports to be a transcript of the
| stenographer's notes OF the proceed.
ings shows only one conviction, which
refers to the affidavit for the facts. II
contains also an oral opinion delivered
by another Judge who was with the
trial Judge on the bench: also the tes-
timony of certain witnesses. which
shows that the jurors in the pending
case saw the alleged contemptuous pub
| LEGATION in the hall and room adjoin-
ing the court room, II not in the court
room itself but does not show what
| the petitioner had to do with its cir
Culation in or near the court room az
distinguished from the city at large,
nor does ii show whether the court was
in session at the time. Whether the
presiding Judge himself saw the paper
circulated In the court room during
the trial does not appear except by the
recital in the mittimus. The transcript
does not indicate that 1t contains all
;he evidence, though there Is nothing
to show that it does not, nor is the
usual stcnOgTaphers certificate attach
ed to ii. though II Is signed by the
stenographer. nor was 1t made part
of the record in this court. nor does 1t
purport to have been filed or to be
part of the record in any court. We
would be justified, however. in over
looking these irregularities as counsel
on both sides have taken 1t for granted
that the transcript was complete and
q part of the record. The affidavit
sets forth in substance that the pet!-
toner made and published for circula
ton the matter in question, intending
thereby to throw disrespect upon the
Judge and to present the former ac-
ton in a ludicrous, etc, manner, and
! to prejudice the case in the minds OF
the public and jury trying the cause,
and that by reason Of said published
matter and intending TO publish an
imadversiOns on the evidence or pro-
ceedings in pending trial tending tG
prejudice the public respecting the
same and to prevent and obstruct the
| administration, and by knowingly pub
, fishing an unfair report OF the pro-
Ceedings of the court and malicious in-
vectives against the court and jury
4 tending to bring the administration OF
! justice into contempt, etc, did COM
; nit a contempt of court. No allegation
was made in the petition, nor was any
offer made in this court to show just
where or under what circumstances tha
publication and circulation took place,
nor was any attempt made to show
these things in the lower court by the
testimony of the witnesses for the pc
titioner or on cross-eXamination of wit
uesses against him or in any other
manner than by the petitioners ans
wer, under oath, denying knowledge
OF the tendency of the second case and
alleging that the publication related to
the first case only.
Not Purged Of Contempt.
The contention that the petitioner