The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-09-09
DIVIDED
COUNSEL
Jury Empaneling
Episode in
Court.
tFrom Thursdays Advertiser.)


The first criminal trial OF the Septem
Der term OF the First Circuit Court re
suited in an acquittal. 7. O'Sulivan be
ing found not guilty OF permitting beef
TO be sold in his licensed saloon on Z
Sunday 1t took the jury but few
minutes TO reach their verdict, which
was returned at 7 minutes before yes
terday afternoon.
There was an interesting clash OF
counsel for the defendant in the em-
pancling of the jury, as related briefly
below, and the strange result occurred
of a juror being excused for cause
that was not held good in another
Jurors case.
THE EMPANELING.
P. O'Sulivan was called for trial un-
der indictment OF permitting beer to be
sold and drank in his licensed saloon on
a Sunday c. Creighton and Henry Ho-
gan appeared for the defendant, and
Mr.. Hogan read objections to the call
ing of a jury from a notebook in his
hand. The grand and trial jury panels
were attacked and the jurisdiction of the
court was denied The plea was also
made that defendant had been once in
jeopardy
Mr.. Prosser briefly replied, saying that
all objections were overruled at last
term and besides that they should have
been brought in form of some regular
plea.
Mr.. Creighton read the indictment TO
show flaws in it and the minutes of
Judge De Bolts hearings of the matter
last term to contradict the prosecutions
claim that nothing was now left but the
trial by jury.
Judge Gear promptly overruled the OBJ
jections, the defense excepted to the
ruling and the calling OF jury began.
Mr.. Prosser began to examine the
twelve men first called as TO their quail
hcations all in a bunch, but as three of
the panel almost simultaneously broke
ont with excuses he concluded he would
have to take the jurymen one at time.
Mr.. Hummell said he was not regis
tered voter and, when ]. A. NJ. Johnson
said he missed registration by absence,
Mr.. Hummell went on to give the addi-
tional excuse that he was member of
the grand jury that indicted the de
fendant last term. w. NJ. Campbell
chimcd in that lie was also member
of that grand jury.
Campbell, the first examined formally,
was excused on the grand jury point,
as was c, r. Collins, but w. II. Bah
bitt another grand juror who helped to
indict O'Sullivan, was retained on that
point though excused for fixed opin-
ion on the case This contradictory
dealing with the point relating to the
grand Jury was caused by the raising
OF an objection by Mr. Hogan in Bah
bits case after the other two jurors
had been excused for that cause Mr..
Prosser would not press a challenge for
cause since the defendants counsel OBJ
jected.
HummellS turn came next, in reg
ular way, and he repeated his EXCUSES
that he was not a registered voter and
that he served on the grand jury. Mr..
Creighton challenged him for cause on
the grand jury proposition, going direct
ly contrary TO his associate counsel in
Babbitt's case.
Judge Gear here interposed and said
defendants counsel ought to agree on
one thing or another.
Mr.. Creighton said the empaneling
was in his charge.
Mr.. Prosser said they could save cx-
ceptions both ways by their conduct.
Mr.. Creighton replied that the idea
of shystering i'll the matter originated in
the brain OF the Assistant Attorney Gen
eral.
Judge Gear remarked that defendants
counsel had furnished appearances TO
give foundation for such a surmise.
Mr.. Prosser stated that Mr. Creighton,
when the question about the grand jury
was mooted to him, poohpoohed the idea
OF one man being qualified to serve as
grand and trial juror i'll the same
case.
The court excused Hummell
J. A. NJ, Johnson's case brought up
the question OF registered voter. Judge
Gear wanted TO hear argument on it.,
Mr. Prosser thought il had been ruled
on. Mr. Creighton held that registra-
tion was not Il qualification for voting
but condition Mr.. Prosscr said the
Supreme Court had SHE'D at the ques-
ton Johnson was passed for cause, but
the contest was later renewed when +,
kaai was called He was OF age, but
had never registered nor voted,
Mr. PTosser called attention 10 the
Supreme Courts decision in the case
OF Geo, II, Fairchld vs.. Board OF Re
-gisiration, The decision referred 90 the
Organic Act rs making registration q
qualification OF a voter,
Judge Gear after looking over the
citation, said the Supreme Court had
not decided The point tie asked II the
defendants objected to a challenge iol
lhat cause Mr Creighton answered h
the negative
Mr prosser stated that his sole obiec
Nas 90 obtain duly qualified jurors llr
would NOT challenge where lhe defend
ann Nhs satisfied a juror WAS qualified
Neither bad he any peremploY rmI
lenRf lo pngr as thr Jury was lhen con
hltWgd
Ma Creighton challenged 4 y Chen
in p,frmpI0rIIy and another name $40
called
AGAIN Nj pusfl accepted lhr ur
inr lhf prosecution ani iiu ir..Uu hH
inp nu more TiH'lfnHu tHa t..NIu
lnW Nat tNnW iH tb ih, Htr
Jams Brown lHhu a. lW. i y
NJ lHafast N n4H.lnm. II D
hHh llnnl Is a0 lWph ! n#f 4
N Nahmf Johnson Nan
iafl lam u lla.H tm n.m.Hm
tnaniiuuta IA fsHs Al