Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1904-01-20

lqualified to sit in the case still II as a
matter of law either was disqualified
1.-THE judgment of disbarment is voidabe
IL not absolutely void and should be
set aside.
Judges Pecuniary Interest.
1t has been long recognized as food
ground for recusation against Judge
that he had a pecuniary interest In the
Issue to be tried either through him
self or a near relative. This principle
twas recognized by Congress in franz
ing the Organic Act for this Territory
and is embraced in Section 81. The
respondent Is possibly the only per-
son who has any pecuniary interest in
this suit Certainly there is little II
any ground for the claim that either
of the judges had any such interest In
the issue and are disqualified under the
provisions Of this section.
Judge and Juror.
This, however, does not dispose Of
the question. 1t will be observed that
section 81 places "a Judge" and Juror"
on the same plane in so far as the dis
qualification Of that section is con-
cerned and prescribed that each shall
be disqualified when interested in the
issue to be tried. It will not be claimed
that this section is exclusive. or that
there are no other disqualifications
than that of interest when applied to
jurors. Then can 1t be claimed with
any more reason that there are not
other grounds Of refusing Judge than
pecuniary interest in the suit?
Functions Exercised.
This proceedings was not an appeal
but was an original cause in this court.
by II the original and not the appel
late jurisdiction OF the court was in
Ivoked. In disposing of It the court not
only declared the law OF the case but
also found the facts to which the law
was applied-thus exercising the func-
ton Of both court and jury. In this
particular, at least, this case Is diff
ferent from the cases usually coming
before this court. There was and pos
sibly could not be any material divi-
! sion among the judges as to the law
findings of facts. or the things proved
by the testimony there was a material
divergence OF opinion and thus the ex-
ercise of the functions of the jury. in
trial courts. was the most important
part of the duties Of the court in this
: case
Greater Than Riches"
~. tt ~. ii.
is It unreasonable to hold that any
thing that would disqualify juror in
the case II 1t were tried to a jury In
: a nisi prius couit would disqualify a
judge from sitting In the case? If the
, respondent were sued In an action of
debt for more than twenty dollars his
! right to u trial by an impartial jury
3 OF his CountIymen is guaranteed by the
! Seventh Amendment to the Constitu.
r ton of the United States. BY the juds'
:. ment in this case the respondent |.
e not only deprived of something of muci
: greater value than twenty dollars
d namely. the right to make living fol
S himself and family by the pursuit o
d his occupation but also something
e which, as is said, "is rather to be chos
I en- than great riches Can 1t be sup
e posed for moment that he has no
t the absolute right to have the facts II
t a case OF such great importance to hin
e passed upon by judges whose minds
i are free from bias or prejudice? Ha!
: he not the right to recuse a Judge II
e the trial OF such cause for the sam,
Il cause he might challenge "A juror If tn,
n case were on trial before a jury?
submit that he has.
Son and Son-in.Law.
One of the charges found established
against the respondent was blackmail
ing the Oahu Railway 4 Land Com
r pany out OF five thousand dollars. Mr
y Dillingham;. who acted for the com
i pany in the transaction, Is the father
in-law of the Chief Justice and tn
Ig Chief Justice is also a stakeholder an
the trustee for the bondholders of tn
3 Oahu Railway a. Land Company
r. Could the Chief Justice approach tn
Of consideration OF this case with tn
S. same impartial and unbiased mind tina
T. he would had the respondent bee
g. charged with Matchmaking some othe
Mt person or corporation with whom h
IN was not SO closely connected?
d. Perry's Prejudice.
n Mr.. Justice Perry has heretofore pur
to ished the respondent at three sewers
Of times for contempt Of court-one sci
ed tence being for term Of ten days
" jail. Could Judge Perry at the heal
ing of these charges give to the d,
he PENDANT the full force and effect Of I'll
ut presumption Of innocence that the Ia
nd requires until his guilt was establishe
OF by competent evidence? Certain
e. Jurors similarly situated when draw
In a trial would be subject to cha
lenge for cause. The denying of sue
he a challenge under such circumstance
OF would be safe grounds for new trla
nd Justice requires that the judi
n should have no bias for or against an
nd individual, and that his mind shou