The Maui news. [volume] (Wailuku, Maui, H.I.) 1900-current, 1920-12-24

sum in the amOun of seven dollars.
this entry being made. according to
the court docket, in the month of
October take it. A great many
other similar entries appear on that
page and on the adjoining page. In
this entry there is no number given;
there is nothing to show that any
preliminary proceedings were filed;
the presumption is that if any such
preliminary proceedings were filed
that they would have been given a
number and would be known by that
number from that time on.
This completes the evidence on be-
half Of the petitioner.
Case of Respondent
The evidence on behalf of the res
pendent shows:
d. That the witness, j. N. X.
Keola testified that he was the clerk
of the court of the second judicial cir
cult during the year 1900; that he
identified the minute book that was
kept by him during that year, stating
that it was the minute book of this
court. He also identified the court
calendar which he testified was the
calendar for the year 1900; and also
identified the fines and costs docket
which showed entries of certain sums
of money paid in fines and costs which
did not show by any number that pro-
ceedings had been filed in this court.
The minute book of this court con-
tanning the minutes of this court for
the year 1900, on its face, purports to
be the minutes of this court commenc-
ing with the December term, 1896, and
the last entry being "11:00 a. m,
January 26, 1901" and was testified
to by Mr.. Keola as being the minutes
of this court covering the year 1900.
In this book there are minutes cover
ing all manner of caseS-term matters
and otherwise, including naturaliza!
ton. But there is nothing to show
that on the 18th day of October, 1900,
that w. A. Mckay was naturalized, or
that he was n~aturalized at any other
time; at least, if the minutes do show
that it has been done, it has not been
pointed out to this court.
The court calendar for the year 1900
was identified by Mr.. Keola, who
testified on behalf of the respondent.
On its face it is, presumably, the court
calendar for the veal 1900. In it are
placed (under dates) many cases
apparently all classes; but on the 18th
day of October there is no entry of
the naturalization of w. A. Mckay;
nor has it been shown that there is
any other entry on any other day, in
the calendar covering that year, where
in w. A. Mckay was naturalized.
Mr.. Keola further testified that during
the month of October, 1900, the time
when the alleged naturalization is
supposed to have taken place, and for
a period of some two or three months,
he was not acting as the clerk OF this
court, he being away on other business
and hat MI. Cummings was acting as
deputy clerk. He further testified that
on his return Mr.. Cummings gave him
pencil memoranda covering such mat
ters as had taken place during Mr..
Keola's absence. Later on Mr.. Cum
mings substantiated and corroborated
Mr.. Keola's testimony, testified that
he turned over pencil memoranda
covering all matters that came before
the court during the time he was so
acting as deputy clerk.
Further evidence introduced on be-
half of respondent was to the effect
that he claimed to have been naturaliz
ed on the 18th day of October, 1900
and that he had no certificate of
naturalization at this time.
Question of Law
This brings us to the question of
law involved in this matter: Under
the legal proceeding of naturalization
it is necessary, First: That declara-
ton of intention be filed, from which
it is TO be two years before the final
admission; and hat it is necessary for
the applicant to reside five years in
the United States; next, he was to
%renounce allegiance forever to what
ever foreign country or %potentate to
which he primarily belonged. Third,
he must be of good moral character
Fourth: That there shall be a judg
ment of a competent court finding that
the applicant is fit for citizenship, and
that the requisites required by law
have been complied with. Fifth: Thai
he shall take the oath of allegiance
Sixth: That the proceedings had must
be of record.
Evidence Admissible
Now in this case it has been
| strenuously contended for and on be
half of respondent that there being nc
record of the naturalization of the
respondent in this court, where it il
alleged he was naturalized, hat evi
dence of his naturalization by paro
evidence is admissible. On that poinr
l will state that it is true that under
certain circumstances parol evidence
of naturalization is admissible. AS t
the circumstances under which sucl
evidence is admissible the general rule
is laid down in l r. c. L., page 858
paragraph IT:
Evidence of Naturalization
al. Evidence of Naturalization
The naturalization act requires thai
the clerk of the court keep a record Of
all naturalization certificates ISSUED
and of all cases where naturalization
has been refused, and therefore the
usual and proper proof of n~aturaliza
ton is a copy of the record of the
court. If the records is available paroI
evidence will not be admitted to prove
or disprove naturalization, but where