Case Name: THE KING vs. J. H. REEVE
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1888-07
Citations: 7 Haw. 336
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE KING vs. J. H. REEVE.
Judges: Judd, C.J., McCully, Preston, Bickerton and Dole, JJ.
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 336–338

Head Matter:
THE KING vs. J. H. REEVE.
Motion for a New Trial.
July Term, 1888.
Judd, C.J., McCully, Preston, Bickerton and Dole, JJ.
The defendant was convicted at the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit on a charge of cattle stealing, and applied to this Court for a new trial on the ground of surprise, and that the verdict was against evidence, and also upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The two first grounds had been disposed of in a former case reported at page 313, ante.
Held, (Dole, J. dissenting) that the application should have been filed within ten days of the trial, and as no such application had been filed, the motion was too late.
The Court will under special circumstances hear such a motion, upon sufficient cause shown, although the affidavits in support are filed after the expiration of ten days.
Mr. Hartwell now, on behalf of the defendant, moves for a new trial on the grounds before mentioned, and also on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
Mr. Peterson, Deputy Attorney-General, took a preliminary objection to the motion, that it was too late.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court, by
Preston, J.
The defendant was convicted at the term of the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, held at Hilo, in May last, on a charge of cattle stealing.
Application was madé to the Circuit Court for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was against the law and the evidence, and of surprise.
This motion was refused on the ground that the Circuit Court could not grant a new trial in a criminal case.
Exceptions to this ruling were duly taken and argued before us at this present term, when the same were overruled. (Ante, page 313.)
A. P. Peterson (Deputy Attorney-General), for prosecution.
A. S. Hartwell, for defendant.
By the Court.
This Court has granted new trials in criminal cases upon sufficient grounds being shown, but according to the precedents and practice such applications for new trials of cases tried by Circuit Courts have only been entertained upon bills of exceptions alleged at the time, and certified by the Justice presiding at that Court.
In cases of applications for new trials for causes not occurring during the progress of the trial, the application should be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court within ten days of the trial, and the Court, under its general right of supervision over other Courts, would entertain the application, and in special cases, upon sufficient cause shown, might hear the application although the affidavits in support were filed after the expiration of the ten days.
In this case no such exceptions were taken, and no motion filed within ten days, and we therefore hold that the application is too late, and the motion on behalf of the Crown must therefore prevail, and
The motion on behalf of the defendant dismissed.