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


Inc three Justices Oh 'he supreme
oo"r' SAT Yesterday AFTERNOON 10 render
.he court uec,sIoh On Ine Wal'er u
Smi'n contempt case Chiel justice
Tleai op,hlon, III "hoSe conclusion
justice ualOrai.n cohcurs' Is given III
tui. oeio", ro'iomlns 10 Tue Sy''aOus
vi ., .ne maturity opil.on' .,u,
on naue"s 'oi p"s W ''s' '"e 'ai'uity
VI Juus,ienI ior contempt 'he court
may consiuer questiohs vi Jurisuic'ioh
vniy anu not ques'iohs Vi "iere irresu-
i"i'.y Ut error
All reasoh"ole monuments are
lh""e III '"'or Vi Tue Jurlsu,c''on VI
judgments are attacked collaterally
Whether an answer under oath by
one cited for contempt operates as
purger or not depends on the circum-
stances.
whether all three Judges of the
First Circuit may sit together as a
court or not Is immaterial IL, when they
DO sit together, the presiding Judge for
the term substantially conducts the
proceedings and finally pronounces
Judgment as IL he alone constituted
4 the court, the others being deemed to
act in an advisory capacity ONLY"
The final order OF the Sunrems
; Court is "Tbe netltioner Is remanded
! 10 the cnstodv of the High Sheriff"
Smith a. Lewis and Andrews. Peters
G. Andrade for the petitioner. Geo A.
Davis contra
/ Justice Perry dissenting holds in
substance that If II was contempt. tn.
cffense was not committed I'm presence
of the court and therefore was con.
structiye contempt which law of this
Territory saws is not permissabIe.
SpIn'on o' 'ne Sour'' ny r'ea'' u d
Inc tacts ana much or the law are
set torth In MI justice ferrys us
sehtlhs OPINION Inc case Is one OF
great dlihculty.
. Ihere Is no DOUBT that the puollca-
lion In question would De helu con-
tempt nj common law-whether II
should DE regarded as relatihs 10
Pehuihs case OF 10 terminated case
erence 10 any particular case, o'
"hether II was IN the presence OF the
.o"'' VI "o,' 10 a'So ho uouo'
,""' II snou,u NC ne,u eon'en"p' uh
uei oui S'"'u'es' II .ne u.''Sioh III 'no
"S" 'aSe' ma" 81 'nou'u u. io'
io"eu' Lo,' aecoiu'hs " ,na' ue'''ion'
'"e n'sao oo :" pi'' ,uI"e, w 'n
"O' Vi 1870 - "e', -V-,' '""' eoH
S''u''rv 'o''e'p'' ""o"'u nv 'o"so'
ue p'i'Sn"u'o 40 sum Leea'uvu 10 eo'
''e 'on'eNip'S o"iy 'no'e ''"' "e.o
ho' ehu,he' Gu III '"v p'e' 'o"s ''"'"'o
" =, "ev' L''l anu u'u ~. lnvan W
ihc'uue al 'nose 'ial are sehelai'' III,
Tho nrrIJcotion in question clearly
comes within nj least one OF the classes
enumerated in the preyious statute.
II therefore this should he regarded
as a case of constructive contempt I'M
der the general law the main question
for consideration would he whether the
decision in tho Push ease shouId Ia
followed or reversed Assuming that
the decision was sound when IL WAS
rendered there might still he n ones.
finn whether the pubIicatIon. IL II could
he considered as relating only to the
terminated case or TO the Judge gem
erally. and not to the pending case,
could he regarded AS n contempt nun
ishable summarily now that we have
! come under the provisions OF the Fed
eral Constitution relating to freedom
OF speech and OF the press, which, al
though not differing materially from
the corresponding constitutional pro-
visions in force here when the Bush
case was decided. might perhaps be
construed differently TO some extent.
See State v. Circuit Court, 81 Wis. l.
con,s,n. and u,hs,s cornus
~. ,a. 49, -, 49, -. 600 -,
nut mus. We te.. - 49, aou
me- , 49, =. -, $50 - - -,
sa", ~" wv ~ ho,'n ,ounJ 9, n',ah :,
i"o'. W. lnS' -, .,,o ",,oetIor, T., th.
w. ". Ia" ,' p""s" up" - a. !, s,,"L
=. 80 ''' 49,. 49, na an,ooi or
- ,"u - ,,,,,, ~ - M,
pui n"ra 80 nh :, a,,oh l., .hoso
US aoa1,n"ao Tho o..
n' '', -. w. quo r -, 80 aa,onaI ond
'IS '...tastotta cootaa, 80
SaIanIa -, 49, 10 70.
io nv "p 'II, 80 asuo,. - a. o,at
- - oIIoto,.oI