Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1910-03-05


thep entered plea of not guilty and
moved for a continuance until me
1910 term, which was denied. The
bill of exceptions sets forth that on
June 10 the defendants moved ,..at
the cause be continued for plea UNI
til June 81, 1909, and excepted to
the denial of their motion. The
cause was set down for trial for June
Fl, at which day City and County
Attorney Cathcart appeared for the
Territory, Messrs. Kinney. Ballou.
Prosser and Anderson Assisting the
prosecution. The defendants object
ed to counsel being employed for the
prosecution and excepted to the over
ruling of their objection. On July
10 a. jury was impaneled to try the
cause. After the complaint was read
to the jury by counsel for the prose-
cution and a statement made of what
the prosecution expected to prove
the defendants moved that they be
discharged on the ground that the
facts stated, II proven, would not
constitute the offense charged and
excepted to the denial Of the motion.
After trial occupying twenty
one days the jury rendered verdict
OF guilty of conspiracy in the third
degree as charged" to which~the de-
PENDANTS excepted as contrary to
law, evidence and weight of evidence,
giving notice of motion for new
trial. They then moved In arrest
on the grounds that the court was
without jurisdiction under the fii.l
amendment that mo person shall be
held to answer for capital or other.
wise Infamous crime unless on a pre-
sentiment or indictment of grand
jury" or the sixth amendment pro-
viding for trial by an impartial jury.
and the third article of the consti-
tuition that the trial of all crimes,
except in cases Of Impeachment, shall
be by jury" or under Sec. S3 of the
Organic Act that mo person sail
be convicted IN any criminal case ex.
cent by unanimous verdict Of the
|jury;a or under the sixth amend
ment that Gin all criminal proceed
ings the accused shall enjoy the
right to be informed OF the nature
and cause of the accusation" or the
FIFTH amendment that mo person
shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against him
SELF or the fourth amendment re.
quiring 1.-THE rigth of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses.
papers and effects against unreason-
able searches and seizures;" or un-
der the third article of the treaty
with Japan that "The dwellings.
nnhufactor,es. warehouses, and shops
CT the citizens or subjects Of each
Of the High Contracting Parties in
the territories of the other. and all
premises appertaining thereto des-
tined for the purposes of residence
or commerce. shall be respected. = 1t
shall not be allowable to proceed to
make a search o.. or O domiciliary
visit to. such dwellings and prem
ises. or to examine or inspect books,
papers, or accounts. except under the
conditions and with the forms pres
cribed by the laws, ordinances and
regulations for citizens or subjects
of the country" or under the four
teenth amendment that mo state
shall deprive any person OF life, lib
erty or property without due pro-
cess OF law, nor deny to any person
within its Jurisdiction the equal pro-
lection of the laws" and because
evidence was improperly received
and excluded; for error In certain
instructions, and because the verdict
was contrary to law, evidence and
weight Of evidence. The defendants
excepted to the Dverruling OF their
motion in arrest and the court sem
fenced each defendant to imprison-
ment without hard labor in Homo
lulu Jail for ten months and fine
OF $500 and onefourth of the costs
The defendants then filed d motion
for o new trial and excepted to Its
denial
The exception to allowing private
counsel 10 assist In the prosecution
is overruled JT<rritory v. Chong
Chak La, 10 Haw. 437; Territory
v. Eo3elo. ante D. 7. together with
the exceptions to refusing u continu-
ance of two days to plead and deny
Ing the motion to discharge the de-
PENDANTS on the ground that the facts
stated by the prosecution In Its OPEN
Ing remarks to the jury would not
constitute the olfense charged.
Before referring to the exceptions
to rulings upon evidence and instruc-
lions We will consider whether the
evidence which went to the jury
showed that the defendants had con
certed together to secure higher
wages for Japanese laborers by an,
Of the unlawful methods charged II
the complaint, for II there was sucf
evidence the exception to the verdic
and refusal OF new trial could no
be sustained unless there was pre-
| judicial error in the rulings durinf