Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-03-11

confirmed by the organic and statutory |
law. Constitutions are to be interpre.
ted as the work of men writing when |
organized society exists and with ref. |
erence to existing condiuons. Cooley's
Constitutional Limitation 6, Ed. 70; |
Van Walters VS.. Board of Children's |
Guardians, 1872 Ind. 567, 80 N. +. X. Sc. |
And In constituting statutes relative
to courts II is presumed that the Legis.
lature does not intend an absurdity or |
tnat absurd consequences shall flow
from its enactments, such result !
therefore will be avoided II the terms
Of the act admit of 1t by a reasonable
construction of the statute. Oats VS..
National Bank, 100 U. s. 239. State VS..
Clark, N. J. Law. Sc; Henry vs. Spill.
son, II Vr. 479; Gilkey VS.. Cooke, 60
| Wis. 1888.
| The public accountant" referred to
in section 30 as applied to this court
is the clerk thereof and no one else,
and the Sheriff in receiving the money
due the clerk acts only in pursuance Of
the order of court which vests in him
authority for that case and none other.
and he receives the money only as q
|
the Attorney Generals Department or
OF any other department of the Govern.
ment. And 1t must be presumed that
the Legislature never intended its en-.
actment to work public inconvenience
or private hardship to the public or to
litigants, and II a statute is doubtful or
ALI biguous or fairly open to more than
one construction. that construction
should be adopted which will avoid
such results. Richards VS.. Sackett, 4
Mass. 43i; Somerset VS.. Dayton. u
Mass. $685. Smith VS.. People. AZ n. Y.
800; U. S. vs.. Fisher, I'd Cranch 1858.
The fact that the jurisdiction of a
court is defined by statute does not
exclude the rules of the common law
unless the exclusion appears by eX.
press words or necessary implication.
The Legislature, may, of course. de-.
fine the jurisdiction Of court II has
the power to create. by designating the
class OF cases or the subjects over
which its authority shall extend, but
in doing this the whole field of juris.
diction is not covered; for certain
principles and organic unwritten law
enter into the statute as silent factors.
hese factors. forceful as they are.
, cannot always control the general sub.
jects and classes. but they do control
as to incidents of such subjects and
classes Thus court has authority
, without any express statute to make
judicial orders and to frame the rem.
edy so as to give appropriate relief.
. Fundamental principles cannot be VIC.
lated with respect to ,Le authority of
, courts, although such principles are
not given direct and explicit expires.
sion in the Constitution or Territorial
, laws; and we must not forget that
/ broad as the legislative power is under
general grant of authority II cannot
violate principles that form part of
tue foundation and solidity of the judi.
cial structure, that Of enforcing respect
and execution of its rules. orders and
mandates. II II were not for these
principles the words of Constitutions
would be dead and powerless. It is
therefore true that all principles that
undergrad and uphold courts are not in
express words, but have their life and
abiding place in the spirit of the Con.
stitution so that in determining the
authority OF courts we must often 90
behind the words OF the Constitution
and statutes to the principles which
they sanction and confirm
The effect of such a construction nut
upon section 20. by the Attorney Gen,
eral and the High Sheriff, would be 10
transfer the powers and duties Of q
/ public officer from one individual Ia
another without authority OF law and
; to Invest the Legislature with judicial
powers-a power which the Legisla.
ture cannot assume. and to transfer
the execution OF judicial orders to the
executive branch of the government
and to have the records of our courts
, In hopeless confusion and to deprive
/ the court OF the control over its own
records, while its judgments remain
unsatished. That such a conclusion
is not only untenable but manifestly
, forced and unnatural must be admit
/, ted: first, since the Sheriff Is an OFF
Ger OF this court and the Court con
trolls its officers and records; second
for the reason that the rule Is that ey
cry court controls its own processes
ana the execution thereof. The wis
dom OF this rule Is obvious since IL Il
l "N'N o'h'i Nlot NuHlNSlOH anu COnllCl
[ Gas in this easel would necessarily re
1 suit. The Indlance a. Co. VS.. Williams
r 22 Ind. 1893; Teft VS.. Sternberg, iOtf
: Fed. 2; Grey VS.. Garnsey 80. 1850; Nal
I. lory VS.. Danber, SO n. Y. 239.
q In view OF the law and the premises
4 this Court must conclude that the
i. Legislature never intended its Ian
r guage used in section 20 of Act 80 tC
0 deprive the clerk OF this court of the
r proper functions of his office, but thai
D 1t did intend, and should be construed
Y TO mean that he or the SAeriff for hin
I should collect all funds under judg
g ments, sentences, or orders as well al
I fines and forfeitures when directed S,
y TO do by the Court and turn them owe
r at once to the clerk and that tn,
I clerk OF this court, and not the Sher
:. n, is the public accountant" for thu
@ lcourt, as contemplated by the statute
That the Act was intended to dis
n turb, disQulet and obstruct justice anC
8 judicial government and proceeding
Q such as the conduct of the defendan
k would produce II permitted with impu
r nifty.
n THAI while the High Sheriff may ap
2 point Sheriff for this court, the Sher
in, when so appointed, must obey thu
@ Courts orders to the exclusion of ev
e cry other authority while so acting.
!. That neither the High Sheriff or tn,