The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1911-04-04
Right to Hold Witnesses.


witnesses.
Right TO Hold Witnesses.
Attorney Kinney interrupted to sub.
init a point Of law claiming that the
court had inherent right to hold wit
nosses. an apart from the right con.
ferred by the statute and even IL that
statute were Unconstitutional. the
court would still be justified in com.
hitting the men TO Jail
Chief Justice Robertson asked for
authorities, and these Kinney prom
Used TO prepare, apologizing for not
having them at his command owing
TO the haste with which the arguments
were prepared.
Attorney Watson pointed out that
the jurisdiction, as admitted by Attor-
ney Ballou was purely statutory, and
TO this interjection Attorney Kinney
replied that such Inconsistencies did
not worry him, as long as the right
law was put before the court. The
interests and rights of 10000 persons
in the islands We're being considered
and it was essential that the courts
attention should be directed to both
sides of the case.
Perry Asks Questions.
Continuing his argument, Attorney
Ballou referred to the words "about
to be preferred" which occurred in
the statute, contending that they
meant an indictment about to be pre-
ferred by the grand jury.
Judge Perry: Bearing in mind the
power of the grand jury to find that
there is no true bill?"
Attorney Ballou: Exactly If the
encouragement says that an indict-
ment is about to be preferred I think
he has said nothing he should not
have said.
Judge Perry: "How does he know
if the grand jury is to bring in a true
bill?"
Attorney Ballou: "He simply says
he believes that an indictment is about
to be preferred. 1t may be that about
to be preferred would mean about
to be preferred to the grand jury by
the attorney-general, in which case he
would certainly know"
Judge Perry-'If preferred means
presentation in court by the grand
jury does not the statute become
clear? The grand jury could not hold
up an indictment if it was found"
Attorney Ballou: ct may go on the
secret file"
Judge Perry: ut is preferrer when
it reaches the court, isn't it? 1t is
a matter for the court whether it goes
on the secret file pending the appre-
hension of the accused" ,
Attorney Ballou then referred to the
affidavit by the Attorney General, ea-
pecially asking that the witnesses be
required by the court to enter into
recognizances to testify before the
grand jury or before the court, in de-
fault of such recognizance to be de-
tanned in Jail. He argued that so far
as the commitment in jail was con-
cerned they were not only there until
the hearing by the grand jury but
specifically until after the hearing of
the said indictment before the circuit
court
Should Have Been Subpoenaed.
Attorney Watson argued that the
witnesses should have first been sub
poenaed and then a bench warrant
issued if they failed to attend He de-
clared that the first order of the court
in this case was for these witnesses
to do something illegal, to wit, to find
recognizances for their appearance at
the grand jury, and in default they
were sent to jail. He ubmitted the
men were illegally detained and asked
for their release.
Witnesses Released.
The court announced that it pro
posed to take the point raised by Mr..
Kinney under advisement, and was not
to give a decision at that
Attorney Ballou offered to consent
to the men being released on their
own reoognizances if forty-eight hours