The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-06-06
The opinions are as follows:
OPINION OF THE COURT. BY
FREAR e. J.

FREAR. q. J.
The facts and much OF the Law are
set forth In ar. Justice PcrTy's dis
sentinE opinion The ease j. one Of
great difficulty.
There - no doubt that the publica-
ti0n, In question would BE- held a con-
tempt at common iaw-whether IL
should BE- regarded as relating To a
pending ease cr to a terminated case.
or 10 the judge generally without ref
ervnce to any particular ease. Or
whether IL wss In the presence of the
court or not. There is also no doubt
that u should BE- held a contempt un-
der our statutes. II the decision in IN.
Bush ease. Haw. 81. should b. fol-
lowed for. according e. that decision.
the Legislature in providing. by the
act Of is3S (P. l.. Sec. zss). that con-
structivc attempts should no longer be-
punishable 49, such. regarded a. con-
structive attempts only those that were
not enumerated In the previous statut.
(P. l. See. 2SD and did not mean TO
include all those that are generally re-
Earded as constructive cOntsfnpts. and
the publication In question clearly
comes within at least one OF the classes
enumerated In the previous statute
n. therefore. this should be- regarded
as a ease Of constructive contempt un-
der the general law. the main question
for consideration would BE- whether the
decision In the Bush case should be
followed or reversed. Assuming that
the decision vas sound when II was
rendered. there might still be "a ques-
tion whether the publication. II IL could
be considered "a relating only to- the
terminated case or TO the Judge gem
orally. and not to the pending case.
could be regarded ~ n contempt pun
ishabie summariiy. 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 10 some extent.
See State v. Circuit Court. 81 Wis. /.
But must We regard this as a case OF
constructive contempt under the gen
eraf law II may have been such In
fact. We may have found Ia such II
We had passed upon the question In the
hrst instance. or We might find - such
II the case were here on appeal. or
perhaps even on writ OF error. But
must We regard 10 as such in these
habeas corpus proceedings7 The Cir
superior Jurisdiction Contempt cases
nre not appcaIable or subject TO re-
view by writ OF error under our stat |
ut.s. Hab~as corpus u n collateral
proceeding. In n collateral proceeding |
mere irregularities and errors cannot
b. inquired into as on appeal or er-
rsr: only questions OF Jurisdiction can
be inquired into. and every prcsump-
ton ls INDUCED In support of the JSTis-
,ilctioa % a superior court. On appeal
pr error. judgments os superior courts.
a; Irast 10 the Jurisdiction Is limited.
may be set aside. ~ Jurisdiction does
not appear on the face OF the record.
but on habcas corpus they may BE- set
aside only when Jurisdiction afiirma-
lively appears 90 be wanting.
In Cuddy. Petitioner. III u. :. go.
he petitioner sought release on hRbcas
corpus from n Judgment % contempt
tn. act constituting the contempt was
set forth In the Judgment. but 10 did
not appear whether the act was COM
r,ftf~d IN the presence OF the court or
r0t and 80 whether 70 was covered BY
- statute or not Counsel coutended
.fat ~. act wrs not committed In the
.sss~r building or while the court ~as
r f~ssfon. and that the ease vas there
Or. ffsffuruishabts from another cts"
~. vas argued and decided az the
.air~ tine. in which - waS hr'f taa'