Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1907-11-11

Confessions or statements made by
| q pcnitent sinner before n church
meeting at which there are present
persons who are not clcrgymen are
not sacred condolences in the eyes OF
the law, and may be admitted as evi.
denCc.
Such is the ruling of Judge Dole
this morning in the Mormon case, -
"A ruling which is liable to be far
caching in its effects, and which
comes as a severe blow to- the Nor
mon Church.
The ruling is on the objection made
by j. J. Dunno last Friday to the
question asked by Judge Perry, at
torncy for the defense, of Kekuhu:
And under the beliefs of your
church, what was said at that meet
irg is regarded as sacred, is II not,
and should not be repeated?"
In his written ruling on the OBJ
lection. the Judge reviewed the testi-
mony which led up to the question.
Kekuhu stated that he was teacher,
or kumu. and further questioning
elected the information that kumu
Is only sort of church policeman,
who has no power to absolve from
sin, and could not, therefore, be re-
garded as a clergyman.
Dunno stated that he intended to
ask the witness as to confession
which George Kekauoha and Amia
made at the church meeting, regard
ing the offense for which George Is
en- trial, and Perry's object was to
block the introduction of this evil
uencc on the ground that the state
ment made before the church meet
ing was privileged and could not be
admitted as evidence in a court of
law.
Judge Dole this morning, in pass
ing on the objection, said in part:
THE general rule is that witness
must tell what he knows. The ex-
ceptions to this rule allowed by the
Hawaiian statutes include confess
sions made to clergymen in their
character. -
The solution, therefore, is to be
found In the answer to the question
whether the witness held the posi-
ton of clergyman in the Mormon
Church. His testimony was that
there were four elders, or lunas, and
eight or nine kumus, or teachers. of
which he was one. So far as the evil
denCe goes 1t appears that the teach
ers, or kumus. have no authority to
absolve or to eXCommuniCate.
The evidence is scant is to The du.
ties and powers of teachers in Il
church meeting, but II is clear tIut
they have no controlling vote, If any
vote at all. Nothing has APP
peared to show that II is necessary
that they should be recipients, to-
gether with the elders. of the confess
sIons of penitents.
"No private or social or religious
can dispense with that
universal one which lies on every
of society to divulge all in
formation in regard to crimes against
the public interests, except as pro-
vided by law, in the recognition of
certain communications which are
because of the sentiment
that to compel testimony under the
would be of more
prejudice than value to the public.
These privileged communications in
Clude those made between attorney
and client, husband and wife, physi-
cian and patient, clergyman and PEN
itent, and some others.
1T is evident that the witness is
not Il clergyman, and it is not evident
that his presence was necessary to
nny communication that may have
been made by the defendant in the
nature of confession. There is
nothing to show that however neces-
Sary the presence of the teachers or
kumus may have been to the trial
and prosecution of this defendant at
such meeting, that their presence was