Territory Hawai`i v. Scully
| Decision Date | 22 June 1915 |
| Parties | TERRITORY OF HAWAII v. JOHN T. SCULLY, WILLMOT R. CHILTON AND JOHN H. FISCHER. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
RESERVED QUESTIONS FROM CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT. HON. C. W. ASHFORD, JUDGE.
(Watson, J., dissenting in part.)
Syllabus by the Court
An indictment which charges the defendants in one count with having unlawfully, maliciously and fraudulently combined and mutually undertaken and concerted together to obstruct the course of justice by giving to a witness a sum of money to evade giving his testimony in a civil proceeding before the board of license commissioners on a hearing of an application for a license to sell intoxicating liquors; in another count with having unlawfully, maliciously and fraudulently concerted together and did suppress the evidence of a certain witness in such proceeding; in another count with having wilfully intended to prevent and obstruct the course of justice, wrongfully, unlawfully and wilfully, evaded, hindered and prevented the said witness from appearing before said board to give his evidence, and did there and then and thereby suppress the evidence of said witness in such proceeding, is good as against a demurrer on the ground of insufficiency, and such demurrer should be overruled.
A motion to quash an indictment on the ground of irregularities in selecting the list of persons to act as grand jurors should be overruled, as challenges to the panel, and to individual jurors, can only be made by the prosecuting officer, or by some person held to answer a criminal charge, and must be made before the grand jury is sworn.
Penal statutes should be construed liberally in favor of the accused and should not be extended in terms by construction; but, the object and purpose of such statutes should not be defeated by refusing to give to the language used its obvious and usual signification.
In construing a statute which makes it an offense “to obstruct the course of justice * * * in any suit or proceeding, criminal or civil,” the word “proceeding” must be considered as having been used in a broad sense, and not in a restricted one; and, so considered, an application pending before a board of license commissioners for renewal of a license to sell intoxicating liquors is a civil proceeding.
Where a statute punishes an act which was a criminal offense at common law, and the statute defines the act in general terms, resort may be had to the common law to ascertain the meaning of the statute.J. W. Cathcart, City and County Attorney ( W. B. Lymer, Deputy City and County Attorney, on the brief) for the Territory.
R. J. O'Brien ( E. C. Peters with him on the brief) for defendant Willmot R. Chilton.
October 14, 1914, the grand jury of the first judicial circuit returned an indictment against the defendants John T. Scully, Willmot R. Chilton and John H. Fischer containing three counts, the facts set forth in each count alleged to have been committed on the 29th day of June, 1914. The first count accused the said defendants of having “unlawfully, maliciously and fraudulently combined and mutually undertook and concerted together to commit an offense against the laws of the Territory of Hawaii, to wit, to suppress legal evidence, * * * then and there, wilfully intending to prevent and obstruct the course of justice, did give to the said John H. Fischer the sum of Twenty Dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, to evade the giving of his testimony before the Board of License Commissioners of the City and County of Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, in the matter of the application of the Waikiki Inn, Limited, a corporation, for a renewal of its Second Class Liquor License, then and there pending before said Board of License Commissioners, the same being a civil proceeding authorized by law, and the said Board of License Commissioners being then and there a Board duly created and existing by virtue of the laws of the Territory of Hawaii, and authorized and directed to hear the same, and the said John H. Fischer, being then and there a witness competent and necessary to be heard in said proceeding and his testimony necessary and material to the issue there presented in the matter so pending as aforesaid, as said John T. Scully, Willmot R. Chilton and John H. Fischer and each of them then and there well knew, and the said John T. Scully, Willmot R. Chilton and John H. Fischer did then and there and thereby commit the crime of conspiracy in the first degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.”
The second count, after setting out the facts aforesaid, charged the said defendants with “unlawfully, maliciously and mutually undertaking and concerting together, suppressed the legal evidence of said John H. Fischer in the civil proceeding aforesaid, and wrongfully and unlawfully prevented the said John H. Fischer from appearing before the said Board of License Commissioners to give legal evidence in the civil proceeding then pending as aforesaid, and did then and there and thereby commit the crime of conspiracy in the first degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.”
The third count, after setting forth the facts and circumstances alleged in the first count, charged the said defendants, by said acts, with “then and there wilfully intending to prevent and obstruct the course of justice, wrongfully, unlawfully and wilfully, evaded, hindered and prevented the said John H. Fischer from appearing before the said Board of License Commissioners to give his legal evidence in the civil proceeding so pending as aforesaid, and did then and there and thereby suppress the legal evidence of the said John H. Fischer in the civil proceeding of the application of the Waikiki Inn, Limited, a corporation, for the renewal of its Second Class Liquor License then and there pending and to be heard before the Board of License Commissioners of the City and County of Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, as hereinafter set forth, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.”
To the said indictment the defendant Scully appeared and filed his written motion to quash the said indictment upon the ground that “the grand jury which found said indictment was not drawn from a certified list of names which had been selected in the manner in which it is provided in section 3 of Act 74 of the Laws of the Territory of Hawaii for the Session of 1905, amending section 1777 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii;” that the jury commissioners, in selecting the list of names from which said grand jury were drawn, did so without regard to the number of registered voters last registered in each of the several precincts of the circuit, selecting the names upon said list from the several precincts in the said circuit as follows: from precinct 1 of the fourth district, having a registered vote of 393, eleven names; from precinct 2 of the said district, having a registered vote of 381, seven names; from precinct 3 of said district, having a registered vote of 342, fourteen names; from precinct 4 of said district, having a registered vote of 364, fifteen names; from precinct 5 of said district, having a registered vote of 341, seven names; from precinct 6 of said district, having a registered vote of 450, one name; from precinct 7 of said district, having a registered vote of 320, two names; from precinct 8 of said district, having a registered vote of 399, one name; from precinct 9 of said district, having a registered vote of 467, one name; from precinct 10 of said district, having a registered vote of 155, four names; from precinct 11 of said district, having a registered vote of 48, one name; from precinct 12 of said district, having a registered vote of 339, one name; from precinct 8 of the fifth district, having a registered vote of 257, two names; from precinct 10 of said district, having a registered vote of 303, one name; from precinct 12 of said district, having a registered vote of 147, one name; from precinct 13 of said district, having a registered vote of 335, five names; from precinct 16 of said district, having a registered vote of 86, one name. And that no names whatever were placed on the grand jury list by the jury commissioners in the following precincts in said fifth district, having registered votes as follows: precinct 1, registered vote 114; precinct 2, registered vote 113; precinct 3, registered vote 97; precinct 4, registered vote 138; precinct 5, registered vote 213; precinct 6, registered vote 133; precinct 7, registered vote 126; precinct 9, registered vote 508; precinct 11, registered vote 504; precinct 14, registered vote 497; precinct 15, registered vote 260; precinct 17, registered vote 107.
In support of said motion to quash the defendants filed a statement of said motion verified by defendant Scully, the affidavit of A. S. Humphreys, the affidavit of D. Kalauokalani, Jr., clerk of the city and county of Honolulu, verifying the statement showing the registered voters in each of the precincts in the first judicial circuit and the number of grand jurors drawn from each, where any were drawn, and a duly certified copy of the list of grand jurors made by the jury commissioners of the first judicial circuit on the 1st day of December, 1913, for use during the year 1914 in the said circuit.
To the said indictment and to each count thereof the defendant Chilton filed his certain demurrer upon a number of grounds specified, but which may be summarized as follows: 1. The said indictment and the first, second and third counts thereof, neither severally nor as a whole, state facts sufficient to constitute any crime or offense against the laws of the Territory of Hawaii. 2. That the said indictment and the said counts thereof, nor either of them, do not allege facts constituting a cause of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawaiian Trust Co. v. Borthwick
...Ter. v. Fernandez, 15 Haw. 133,In re Kawahara Yasutaro, 15 Haw. 667, Ter. v. Sing Yuen, 18 Haw. 611, Ter. v. Ah Goon, 22 Haw. 31, Ter. v. Scully, 22 Haw. 618, and Ter. v. Palai, 23 Haw. 133. In Hollinger v. Kumalae, 25 Haw. 669––another case on statutory construction––it was held that statu......
-
State v. Ornellas
...supra, and this court did not find it necessary to discuss the issue there. The cases of Territory v. Ferris, 15 Haw. 139, and Territory v. Scully, 22 Haw. 618, are cited by the State in support of its contention. In Ferris, this court held that unless a timely challenge was made, the failu......