The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1904-01-20

sit on an appeal, or new trial, in any
case, in which ne may have given a
previous judgment. The question of
whether or not Sumner was insane
within the meaning of our statute on
guardianship, was not even in issue in
TINS case, nor was it passed upon. On
the subject of bias and prejudice, the
only fact stated in support of the con-
tention is that on three different occa-
sions some years ago the writer as
Circuit Judge punished the respondent
for contempt. 1t is not even alleged
that the punishment was undeserved.
The. writer has no hesitation in saying
that in fact no bias or prejudice exists
OF existed at the time of the trial and
the Court finds that no cause has been
shown for believing that any exists or
existed.
"The provision CSec. 50 of the Organ
ic Act with reference TO which the sug-
gestion that the chef Justice is dis
qualified is made, is that no person
shall sit as a judge in any case
in which his relative by affinity or by
consanguinity within the third degree
is interested, either as plaintiff or de-
PENDANT, or in the issue of which the
said Judge may have, either di-
rectly or through such relative any
pecuniary interest. The facts relied
upon are that the Chief Justice is
stockholder in the Oahu Railway e.
Land Co. and a trustee for it's bond
holders and that he rs related within
the degree named to Mr.. B. F. Dilling-
ham, an officer of and a stockholder in
that corporation. 1t appeared in evil
dence during the hearing, in connec-
ton with one of the charges against
the respondent, that the latter obtained
$4,000 from the railroad company in the
course of the settlement of the litiga-
ton then pending. Neither the Chief
Justice nor Mr.. Dillingham; nor the
Oahu Railway & Land Co. has any
interest within the meaning of that
section, in this case or in it's issue-a
proceeding the sole question in which
was whether or not the respondent
was guilty of professional misconduct.
LAS to actual bias or prejudice on the
part of the Chief, Justice as distin-
guished from legal or technical dis
qualifications, that, if there were any,
would naturally be under the circum-
stances in favor of the respondent but
not only is there nothing to indicate
any such bias or prejudice but the
respondent himself does not contend
there was or is any. on the contrary
the respondent in his brief says With
the Chief Justice 1 have
no complaint nor fault as TO his fair
Fness and impartiality."
AS to the mode of procedure the
Court says:
THE filing of an information by the
Attorney General was not, in our opin-
ion, Irregular No complaint by Mrs.
Davis or Mr.. Sumner or any other
Iarty supposed to be aggrieved was
necessary. That thu Attorney General
had previously reported that he knew
of no sufficient cause for presenting
charges against the respondent, is i'm
material. In instituting the proceed
ings he acted upon information OBJ
tanned wholly as to one charge and in
large part at least is to the other
| charges subsequent to the filing Of the
report Moreover, he presented the
information and conducted the inves-
tigation, not Of his own motion, but,
as we have already said, at the request
Of this Court"
% sis 4