The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-06-18
SPEEDY ENDING
Of MURDER TRIAL
Somebody Blundered and Two
Accused Murderers Are
Set Free.


nese accused of murder in the first
degree, who have been for two years
awaiting trial, were acquitted yester-
| dav by Judge Robinson, the decision
| exciting a great deal of attention be-
cause of the unusual circumstances
making it necessary. The fact that
| the two accused were discharged with.
out a trial, ON a plea in bar made by.
| Nv. T. RawIins, their attorney, showed
| that someone had blundered some-
where, although the blame was not
fixed. The whole matter of the ac-
uuittaI rested on the fact that there
was nothing on record in the minutes
of Judge De Bolts court to show that
| the case against the accused had even
been continued from the December
term of 1906 This at once, according
20 Hawaiian precedent, placed them
beyond the jurisdiction of the court
and there was nothing upon which
they could be held, tried or reindicted.
The presentation of the plea i'm bar
was made the first thing yesterday
morning, following the jury roll-cau,
and all morning was taken up by
argument, searching the minutes of De
Bolts court and consulting authorities
Deputy Attorney General Larnacha
who had the case in hand for his de-
partment, was nonplused by the show
ing made by Rawiins and had to
throw up his hands.
The crime, for which Mazda and
Miomura were indicted. was the kill
ing of another japanese, Katsujiro
Mineoka, in brawl at Eva on June
16, 1906. They were indicted in Sep
TENDER of the same year and came up
to plead before Judge De Bolt in
December of 1906, their cases going
over.
Here is where the hiatus comes in,
no record being available of a COM
mitment to another term
The plea in bar. sustained reluctant
inson, was: II
Now comes Mazda, one of the de-
PENDANTS herein, and moves this Hon
orable Court that he be discharged
and not compelled to answer or stand
trial on the Indictment now on file
against him on the following grounds:
'1-Thht the indictment was return
ed against him and filed in this court
at the September A. d. 1905 term and
that he was not tried at said Septem-
Der A D. 1906 term of this court.
'2@That this court at the term
aforesaid made no order granting a
change of venue, and further that no
order has been issued or made by the
First Circuit Court or any Judge there
of continuing or postponing the trial
of said cause upon said indictment to
the January term. 1907, of this court.
'S-That the failure to prosecute up
on said indictment found at said Sep
TENDER term, A. D. 1906, operates as
an acquittal of this defendant.
''4-That the defendant herein should
be discharged as he has already been
acquitted of the offense alleged in the
Indictment upon which this trial is
now to proceed, and now pleads au-
trefois acquit
This motion is based upon all the
records and papers now on file in this
court and upon testimony to be ad-
duced in support thereof"
In rendering his decision discharg-
ing the prisoners, both of whom had
pleaded as above. Judge Robinson
said:
= 1T is not the duty Of this court to
legislate, it is merely the duty of the
court to construe and administer and
apply the law as 1t finds it and as
the Legislature enacts. And reluctant
as 1 am to allow the pleas in bar
particularly in this case because OF
its character and because of the
gravity and magnitude of the crime
charged-the greatest known to our
law-I see no other way out of it in
view of the provisions of our statute
and of the decision of the Supreme
Court by Mr.. Justice Hartwell in King
VS.. Tin All Chin ct al, 3rd Haw. 80.
Let the pleas in bar be and the
same are hereby allowed, and let the
defendants be and they are discharg-
ed" i