Territory Hawai`i v. Kimura
| Decision Date | 26 March 1904 |
| Parties | TERRITORY OF HAWAII v. KIMURA. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREEXCEPTIONS FROM CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT.
Syllabus by the Court
An exception to the verdict of a jury, in a criminal case, on the ground that it is contrary to the law and the evidence and against the weight of the evidence and one to an order denying a motion for a new trial based on the same ground are overruled, the verdict being found to be not contrary to the law and the evidence and not against the weight of the evidence.
M. F. Prosser, Deputy Attorney General, for the Territory.
No brief for defendant.
The defendant is charged, by indictment, with the murder of one Kane Yamanaka, a Japanese woman, in the District of Waialua, Island of Oahu, Territory of Hawaii, on the 18th day of May, 1902. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree and the Court sentenced him to be hanged by the neck until dead. The cause is brought to this Court by bill of exceptions.
There are only three exceptions set out in the bill. The first one was taken to the ruling of the court on an objection to a question on the ground that it was leading. The question asked a witness for the prosecution was, “Were you or were you not present when the doctor examined the body”? A. “I was not present.” This exception is not well taken. In view of the answer the question was clearly immaterial and the exception seems to be frivolous.
The other exceptions present the same question in different form. The objection was that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence and against the weight of the evidence. This question was urged first against the verdict and second as grounds for a motion for a new trial. The objection was overruled in each form. The consideration of these exceptions requires an examination of the evidence.
It appears from the evidence that the deceased for about a year prior to her death had been living with Yamanaka, a Japanese store-keeper, at Waialua, as his wife without having been married according to the laws of the Territory, although she had taken his name and that the defendant was in the employ of Yamanaka and had been in his service for a year past; that the 18th day of May, 1902, occurred on Sunday, and that the deceased and defendant, at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon drove away from Yamanaka's store in a one-horse cart, the former responding to an invitation of a neighbor, residing a few miles away, to attend a child's birthday party and the defendant was sent along as driver. The defendant while at the party imbibed rather freely of saki and became somewhat intoxicated. When ready to start home the deceased asked the defendant to permit Saito, whom she had met at the luau, to ride with them in the cart. The defendant refused, saying that three persons could not ride in the cart, whereupon the deceased declared that she would not ride but would walk with Saito and started off with him. The defendant drove on alone in the cart for a time and then waited for the deceased and Saito to come up to him, when he again insisted that the deceased should ride with him and when she refused he forced her into the cart and the two drove away in the direction of Yamanaka's. Fujikawa whose house is on the public road about one mile from Yamanaka's and between there and the place where the defendant compelled the deceased to get into the cart, testified that he heard loud talking in the road in front of his place about 9 o'clock p. m. and went to the door and saw the deceased and the defendant passing in the cart; that a few minutes later he heard the deceased cry out “help”, “come and help”-and starting to go to her assistance he heard a louder cry for help from the deceased, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial