Volume 4 — District of Hawaii

<p>Eminent Domain: Suggestion of disqualification of judge.</p>

<p>1. Evidence — Expert testimony — Appraisement of real estate on information: In proceedings requiring proof of the value of real estate and improvements attached thereto, expert testimony based upon information alone, as to rentals, sales of neighborhood property, and areas, some of which is correct and some incorrect is inadmissible before a jury.</p> <p>2. Same — Same—Appraisement on experience and examination: In such proceedings, when it appears that the testimony of an expert witness is based upon his own experience as a real estate broker and on his examination of the property, independently of his opinion based upon his estimate of the values of neighboring properties arrived at from information as to their rentals and sales, some of which is incorrect, it should be allowed to stand.</p>

<p>Eminent Domain: On objection to question in evidence.</p>

<p>1. Eminent Domain — “Just compensation”: The rule established by the precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States in regard to compensation to be made for the taking of private property for public uses under the law of eminent domain is, that the “just compensation” required by the Constitution is. limited to an equivalent for the property taken.</p> <p>2. Same — Same—Movable Fixtures: Such rule taken to include damages resulting from the necessary removal of movable fixtures from the property taken, but not the expense of such removal.</p>

<p>Eminent Domain: Instructions to jury.</p>

<p>Eminent Domain: Motion for allowance of interest</p>

<p>1. Admiralty — Process—Issuance—Necessity of order for: fTo set in motion the service of a libel in admiralty and of a simple monition to appear and answer (without attachment), process may issue as a matter of course without special order of court.</p> <p>2. Same — Same—Service upon foreign corporation: Service of process upon a foreign corporation in the manner prescribed by the laws of the Territory of Hawaii, is valid, in the absence of any special governing provision of Federal statute or practice.</p> <p>3. Same — Same—Same—Motion to quash: Where a motion to quash, together with its supporting affidavit, leaves uncertain facts upon which the motion is based, relief is refused, but with leave to amend.</p> <p>4. Foreign corporations — Failure to comply with local laws— Jurisdiction of Federal court: Failure of a foreign corporation, respondent in an admiralty suit, to comply with local laws requiring such corporations to provide persons upon whom service of process may be made, does not deprive the United States District Court of jurisdiction of that respondent when duly served through its agent. Spreckels v. The Nevadan, 1 U. S. Dist. Ct. Haw. 354, followed.</p>

<p>In Admiralty: Exceptions to libel.</p>

<p>1. Aliens — Immigration laws — Right of domiciled alien criminal to re-enter: Domiciled aliens returning from a temporary absence abroad, are not excluded from admission to the United States by.the Immigration Act (Act of Feb. 20, 1907, 34 Stat. 898, amended by Act of March 26, 1910, 36 Stat. 263), evven though of the criminal class (Act, section 2).</p> <p>2. Courts — Rules of decision — Decision of appellate court: This court is bound, as a rule, to follow the decision of its superior court, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a similar case. United States v. Nakaslmna, 160 Fed. 842, followed.</p> <p>3. Same — Decision of associate judge: The ruling of one member of this court should be followed by his associate unless extraordinary reasons require its reconsideration.</p> <p>4. Statutes — Construction: As a rule, the intent of a statute is to be ascertained solely from the language used.</p>

<p>Indictment: Plea in abatement.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Petition for writ; order to show cause.</p>

<p>Naturalization — Residence.—Member of marine corps, honorably discharged: Under 28 Stat. 124, an alien who has heen honorably discharged from service in the marine corps after having served for the term of one enlistment, may he admitted to citizenship without other proof of residence, such service being taken in lieu thereof.</p>

<p>Criminal Law: Indictment under Penal Code, section 276.</p>

<p>1. Indictment — Offenses charged in general language of statute— Bill of particulars: The allegations of an indictment for violation of the statute against the importation and use of opium, 35 Stat. 614, being in the general language of the statute, the court on motion orders a bill of particulars as to time and place of importation (under one count), time and place of other alleged acts (under another count), and names of persons whom the defendant is charged with having assisted in importation (under another count). A bill of particulars as to certain other items refused.</p> <p>2. Same — Election between counts: When two or more distinct offenses are properly charged in separate counts of an indictment, the government will not be required to elect before the trial upon which one of such counts it will proceed against the defendant, unless it appears that the defendant would be prejudiced or embarrassed without such election. United. States v. Lean Hung, 3 U. S. Dist. Ct. Haw. 552, followed.</p>

<p>1. Constitutional law — Search and seizure — Self incrimination: The incidental seizure of an incriminating account book in the execution of a search warrant for contraband opium, is not an unreasonable search or seizure or an infringement of the guaranty against self-incrimination.</p> <p>2. Search warrant — Federal statutes: Statutory authority for search warrants in case of contraband opium, discussed.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Hearing on return to writ.</p>

<p>Bankruptcy■ — Process, subpoena — Return day: In determining the return day of the writ of subpoena, it is erroneous to exclude intervening Sundays in counting the fifteen days prescribed by the Bankruptcy Act, sec. 18, subdiv. a.</p> <p>■Reported, 29 Am. B. R. 13.</p>

<p>1. Bankruptcy — Attorneys fees of creditors’ counsel, how determined: The fees of attorneys for petitioning creditors in proceedings in involuntary bankruptcy are to be determined by the condition of the estate, as one of the main considerations, — i.e., by the results effected, the assets saved.</p> <p>2. Same — Same—No fees for services necessitated by own negligence: Attorneys for the creditors are not entitled to a fee for arguing in opposition to a motion to quash growing out of an error of the clerk of court in fixing the return day, which error might by due diligence have been mitigated by the attorneys’ early efforts. Nor are they to be allowed a fee for effecting amendments to the petition necessitated by their own oversight. Nor for arguing a motion due to their neglect to file a replication.</p> <p>3. Same — Attorney’s fees of bankrupt’s counsel — For contesting proceedings — For attending creditors’ meetings: The attorney for an involuntary bankrupt is not allowed a fee for contesting a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy. Nor is he allowed a fee under the circumstances of this case for merely attending a first meeting of creditors where it does not affirmatively appear that his presence was of any aid to the bankrupt in performing the duties prescribed by law. Bankruptcy Act, sec. 64, applied.</p> <p>Reported, 29 Am. B. R. 8.</p>

<p>In Admiralty: Motion to strike a deposition from the record.</p>

<p>1. Right of alien to land claimed on the ground of domicil — Denial on a question of law — Habeas Corpus: Where the right of an alien to enter the United States is claimed on the ground of domicil, a denial thereof by the immigration officers on a question of law, may be reviewed on an application for a writ of habeas corpus.</p> <p>2. Jurisdiction of immigration officers — Habeas corpus: When proceedings before immigration authorities show that they have acted without jurisdiction, relief may be had by writ of habeas corpus.</p> <p>3. Domicil — Residence—Intention: Residence in a certain locality for a period of years with one’s family and the conduct of regular employment there, will prevail, on the question of domicil, over any floating purpose such person may entertain to return at some indefinite future time to a former place of residence tó reside.</p> <p>4. Same — Married woman — Temporary residence away from home: Temporary residence of a married woman away from home cannot, in ordinary circumstances, be set up against the presumption of law that the domicil of the husband is the domicil of the wife.</p> <p>5. Resident alien returning to United States after temporary absence: An alien who has acquired a domicil in the United States can-’ not be treated as an immigrant on his return to the United States after, a temporary absence not involving a change of domicil.</p> <p>6. Construction of statutes as affected by revision or amendment: Authoritative construction of a statue holds good as to a revision or amendment thereof when the features which have been so construed remain substantially unchanged and do not suggest, in the revision or amendment, any intention of the legislature to change them.</p>

<p>Jurors — Summoning—Service of wrong party: Where a person not drawn as a juror, but having the same name as a person on the jury list, has by error been served with summons to appear, the court may set the service aside and direct the marshal to summon the proper party.</p>

<p>1. Salvage — DistriMition of salvage fund: The old rule, of allowance of one-third of the salvage fund to the owners and two-thirds to the crew “in. ordinary cases” of salvage performed from sailing vessels, radically changed with the advent of steam vessels. Prevailing, allowance being from one-fourth to one-third to the officers and crews; preponderance of ordinary cases favoring the one-fourth allowance, and one-fifth and one-sixth being sometimes given.</p> <p>2. Same — Same—Consideration of special services: Special consideration is given to special services, like carrying a line attached to a hawser to a stranded vessel a hundred fathoms away, by boat in a dark and squally night.</p> <p>3. Same — Same—Person specially engaged for the salvage enterprise: A person engaged specially for the salvage enterprise, included in the distribution of salvage money, the chance of making something by way of salvage in addition to his pay, having been held out to him by the master in engaging him.</p> <p>4. Same — Same—Disposition of amount not claimed: The master not claiming salvage money the amount he would otherwise have received inures to the owners.</p> <p>5. Same — Same—Deck hands: Favorable consideration of claims of deck hands discussed.</p> <p>6. Costs — Expenses—Transcript of testimony: Cost of a transcript of testimony furnished to counsel as the trial proceeded and to enable them to handle the case to best advanage, approved as a necessary expense of litigation.</p>

<p>In Rem: On information for forfeiture.</p>

<p>In Rem: On information for forfeiture. Motion to allow marshal’s bill of fees and expenses of sale.</p>

<p>Bankruptcy — Partnership petition — Non-joining partner — Notice: In a proceeding in which one of the members of a copartnership petitions tor the adjudication of the firm as a voluntary bankrupt, the adjudication is vacated upon it appearing that one of the partners did not actually authorize, or consent to, the petition made for and in his hehalf, and was not given notice either of the filing of the petition or of the hearing thereon.</p> <p>Reported, 29 Am. B. R. 171.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy: On adjudication; and on motion for schedules of firm members.</p>

<p>At Law: Action of debt on bond.</p>

<p>At Law: Motion in arrest of judgment.</p>

<p>At Law: Motion for special findings.</p>

Information under “An act to provide for the thirteenth and subsequent decennial censuses,” approved July 2, 1909, 36 Stat. 1. Plea of “not guilty,” and jury waived.

<p>Habeas Corpus: Petition for writ; and Motion to reconsider order discharging rule nisi.</p>

<p>1. Criminal law — Evidence—Confessions—Inducement: In support of a motion to dismiss indictment, it was deposed that the district attorney, having informed the defendant of suspicions of his having opium concealed in Ms possession, ashed if there was any objection to an examination of his trunk, and that the defendant, replying in the negative, invited the attorney to his room, whereupon the attorney said he would “make it as light as possible,” would “use his influence and make the offense as light as possible,” and would “do all he could” for the defendant. Held, that such circumstances, if true, would not of themselves alone render an immediately subsequent confession of possession of opium, at once followed by its discovery, incompetent as the ■ basis of an indictment: the defendant having already consented to open the trunk to examination of what its contents might disclose, a subsequent suggestion of favor or leniency, though precedent to the examination, is not such an inducement of hope of favor as to render involúntary and incompetent as evidence a confession made at, or before and near, the time of such examination.</p> <p>2. Indictment — Motion to dismiss — Affidavit: In support of a motion to dismiss indictment on the ground of its being based on the admission of an incompetent confession in evidence before the grand jury, an affidavit which shows only the confession and not the fact of its having been presented to the grand jury nor the fact of its being the basis of the indictment, is insufficient, even though those facts be stated in the body of the motion itself; such facts should be verified by oath.</p> <p>3. Indictment — Motion to quash — Grounds supporting motion: On motion to quash indictment, an objection based on a circumstance (res gesta) involved in the act charged but not apparent on the face of the indictment, is untenable.</p> <p>4. Indictment — Sufficiency—Allegations of place: An indictment charging violation of the “opium” act (35 Stat. 614, Feb. 9, 1909) in the defendant’s having received, bought, sold, and concealed smoking opium, “theretofore imported and brought into the United States from some foreign country to the grand jurors unknown," is sufficient against a motion to quash for want of allegation of the country whence the opium was brought.</p> <p>5. Constitutional law — Due process of law — Evidence; possession as prima facie evidence of crime: The constitutional guaranty of due process of law is not infringed by the provision of said act, that possession of contraband opium “shall he deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.”</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy: Motion for service by publication.</p>

<p>1,. Domicil — Proof—Intent—Acts: • Mere evidence of intent is insufficient to prove domicil. Acts indicative of purpose are essential.</p> <p>2. Habeas corpus — Return—Conclusions—Facts: The return to the writ of habeas corpus must be explicit as to the grounds of the detention. A statement of the conclusions of a board of special inquiry without giving facts upon which such conclusions were based is insufficient.</p> <p>3. Same — Consideration of grounds of detention — Facts—Law— Bona fides — Jurisdiction: While avoiding any retrial of the case on the facts the court must consider the facts as questions of law may be raised by them and also as to the genuineness and bona fides of the hearing, in order to ascertain whether the court has jurisdiction.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Demurrer to return, and motion to discharge.</p>

<p>1. Domicil of alien — Presumption of lato: An alien coming to Hawaii as a farm laborer continued tbat occupation for four years and then returned to his own country and, after a visit of eight months, returned to Hawaii, bringing his wife with him for the purpose of resuming his former occupation in the same locality as before. Held, that the facts relating to his first coming created a presumption that he thereby acquired a domicil in Hawaii, and that presumption is fortified by his temporary trip to Japan and return with his wife to resume his occupation and residence in Hawaii.</p> <p>2. Same — Change of domicil — Presumption of lato: Any expectation by him to return to Japan after a further stay in Hawaii of about ten years, standing alone, would not affect such domicil, which once established is presumed to continue until actually changed.</p> <p>3. Domiciled alien — Alien immigrant — Immigration Act — Jurisdiction of hoard of special inquiry: The facts showed the petitioner to be a resident alien, and as the statute of 1907, 34 Stat. 898, under which the proceedings occurred, provides only for the deportation of alien immigrants, the board of special inquiry was without jurisdiction to deport him.</p> <p>4. Habeas corpus — Jurisdiction of court: Relief by habeas corpus may be granted when the evidence is uncontradicted and shows without doubt that the case is beyond the statutes and not covered by them.</p>

<p>1. Impeachment of witnesses — Use of impeaching statements not referred to in trial as affecting regularity of proceedings and jurisdiction of District Court in habeas corpus: At the hearing of the question of a person’s right to land in the United States, claiming to be an American citizen by birth, two of his witnesses had previously given testimony in another case which the acting inspector in charge considered contradictory to the testimony they gave at the hearing, but which was not referred to at the hearing, but was examined privately afterwards by him. Upon this and the other testimony taken, the inspector ordered the deportation of such person. Held, on habeas corpus proceedings, that the use of such alleged contradictory testimony without giving such two witnesses an opportunity of meeting and explaining it, was irregular and deprived the person claiming the right to land of the fair and lawful hearing to which he was entitled, and gave jurisdiction' of ,the case on its merits to the District Court.</p> <p>2. Rehearing of case before inspector — Authority of District Court having acquired jurisdiction: A court in habeas corpus proceedings is without authority to order a rehearing before the inspector of an issue involving a person’s right to land in the United States, but if it has acquired jurisdiction of the case on its merits, it may, in case the applicant had not established his right to land before the inspector, try such issue and allow the parties to introduce further testimony.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Objection for failure to exhaust remedies.</p>

<p>1. Appeal; writ of error — Time ivften appeals and writs of error may le taken or sued out: The time when appeals or writs of error for review in the Circuit Court of Appeals may he “taken or sued out,” begins to run on the date when the judgment, order or decree is filed.</p> <p>2. Draft of judgment, order and decree t>y winning party: The winning party should, without unnecessary delay, present draft of judgment, order or decree for signing and filing.</p>

<p>Bankruptcy — Insolvency—Burden of prooí: The burden of proving solvency under section 3, clause “d” of the bankruptcy act, 30 Stat. 546, is not shifted from the alleged bankrupt to the petitioning creditors merely by reason of the fact that the respondent’s books, papers, and accounts are in the custody of the marshal under an order to seize and hold.</p> <p>Reported, 30 Am. B. R. 130.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy: Petition for- discharge; petition for attorney’s fees.</p>

<p>Habeas corpus: On return to writ.</p>

<p>Habeas corpus: Demurrer to respondent’s return.</p>

<p>1. Statutes — Construction—Exceptions to letter of law: An exception to the letter of a statute may not be raised on the ground that a matter is not within its spirit, unless the reason for the exception be imperative or at least reasonably clear.</p> <p>2. Aliens — Immigration—Wife of resident alien: The wife of a resident alien is subject to the immigration act, 34 Stat. 898, am. 36 Stat. 263.</p>

<p>Habeas corpus: On traverse to return to order to show cause.</p>

<p>In Admiralty: Libel in rem for damages.</p>

<p>In Admiralty: Libels in rem for salvage (consolidated for trial).</p>

<p>Admiralty: Entry of decree pursuant to mandate of appellate court.</p>

<p>Admiralty. On motion of shipowner for allowance of certain expenses against salvage award to seamen.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Motion for discharge of petitioner.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Application for writ.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Petition for writ.</p>

<p>Habeas corpus: Hearing on return to writ.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Motion to discharge petitioner, and Demurrer to return.</p>

<p>Naturalization: Hearing on petition.</p>

<p>1. Habeas corpus — Order to show cause: The return, under an order to show cause, exhibiting testimony supporting the warrant of deportation, and there appearing no evidence of illegality or error of law in the proceedings leading up to the warrant, the court is without jurisdiction. Petition denied.</p> <p>2. Aliens — Deportation of aliens unlawfully in the United States, under section 8 of act approved March 26, 1910, 86 Stat. 268: The provision of section 3 of an act approved March 26, 1910, to amend an act to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States, approved February 20, 1907, for the deportation of aliens found to he unlawfully in the United States, “in the manner provided by sections 20 and 21” of the amended act, is not deprived of its force through the provisions of such sections 20 and 21, which provide for the deportation of aliens found to he unlawfully within the United States within 3 years after landing; as the reference to such sections in the amending act is limited simply to the manner of the deportation therein provided.</p>

<p> On request of clerk for instructions as to disposition of unclaimed moneys in registry of court. </p>

<p>In Admiralty: Libel in rem for damages.</p>

<p>Aliens unlawfully in the United States — Habeas Corpus — Remedies before the inspector in charge: An alien under arrest for being unlawfully in tbe United States may not Rave the benefit of a writ of habeas corpus until he has exhausted his remedies before the inspector in charge.</p>

<p>Habeas corpus: Demurrer to petition.</p>

<p>1. Immigration — Deportation—Entering the United, States: An alien who came to the Hawaiian Islands previous to their annexation to the United States, and was liying there at the time of sueh annexation cannot be said to “have entered the United States” within the meaning of section 3 of the act of February 20, 1907, as amended by the act of March 26, 1910, 36 Stat. 263.</p> <p>2. Same — Same—Same—Actual landing subject to statutory conditions: The provisions of the said statute for the deportation of aliens found “to be unlawfully within the United States”, presume an actual landing of such aliens, subject to the conditions as to conduct set forth in the statute.</p> <p>3. Habeas Corpus — Newly discovered evidence in behalf of respondent, basis for in pleadings; laches: A motion of respondent for leave to show that the alien though originally- coming to Hawaii before annexation, later visited China and returned again to Hawaii, is denied, as there is no basis for such testimony in the pleadings and no showing that the alleged fact is newly discovered, and as such evidence, if existing, was within the reach of the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings.</p>

<p>Aliens — Immigration—Birth certificate as evidence of status: Held, under the evidence before the board of special inquiry of the immigration service, that the board was justified in regarding the prima facie weight of a certificate of Hawaiian birth, issued by the Secretary of the Territory of Hawaii, as having been overcome.</p>

<p>1. Post offices — Deposit of obscene matter in the mail — Principal; accessory: One who prepares for another person an obscene communication with the knowledge that the other is to deposit- it in the post office for mailing and delivery to a third person, may by virtue of Penal Code, sec. 332, be indicted and convicted as a principal under Penal Code, sec. 211.</p> <p>2. Criminal law — Accessory before the fact: Penal Code, sec. 332, authorizes the charging of an accessory before the fact as a principal.</p> <p>3. Same — “Aid,", “abet”: Definitions of, discussed.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy: On review of order of referee.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy: On objection to discharge.</p>

<p>Immigration — Conclusiveness of findings . of immigration officers as to right of alien to landing, discussed.</p>

<p>1. Building material — Cost of transportation — Reasonable value at place of delivery: The cost of the transportation of building materials, furnished by sub-contractors for the construction of public works, is an element of their value at the place of delivery.</p> <p>2. Materials and labor — Tools and machines: Tools and machines used in. the construction of buildings under an engagement to furnish materials and labor, are not within such contract.</p>

<p>At Law: Taxation of costs.</p>

<p>In Admiralty: Libel in rem for supplies.</p>

<p>Maritime lien — Necessaries—Supplies of food furnished alien immigrants pending quarantine: The fact that a charter party providing for transportation of alien immigrants stipulates that the owners of the carrier, a foreign vessel, shall comply with all the laws, rules, and regulations of the port of destination with reference to immigration and quarantine, is no basis for a maritime lien or suit in rem for supplies of food furnished to alien immigrants so transported pending their detention in quarantine on shore at such port but before their admission to the country. Nor is the rule any different by reason of the fact that the master in behalf of the owner of the vessel requested the furnishing of such supplies.</p>

<p>1. Indictment — Description of defendant as within class of offenders contemplated by statute: When a statute denominates as an offender any one of a certain class of persons who shall do or omit a certain act, an indictment for an offense within the statute must describe the defendant as one of that class.</p> <p>2. Same — Variance—Conviction for lesser offense embraced within greater: Where an indictment, endorsed as covering an offense under Penal Code, sec. 291, assault by master of a vessel upon a seaman, nevertheless fails to describe the defendant' as such master, but aptly describes an offense under Penal Code, sec. 276, assault upon the high seas, the case may be proceeded with as a prosecution under the latter section. Rev. State., sec. 1035 applied.</p> <p>3. Same — Endorsement varying from body in describing offense: Where the endorsement of an indictment indicates a different offense from that described in the body of the indictment, it may be disregarded.</p>

<p>1. Immigration• — Fairness of hearing before officers: The conduct of a hearing may be fair, but as a trial is incomplete until there is a decision, it may be unfair if the decision is not based on the evidence.</p> <p>2. Evidence — Testimony of collateral facts as affecting testimony of facts germane to the issue: Slight inaccuracies of testimony as to collateral facts cannot be used to evade conclusions necessarily arising from testimony of facts germane to the issué.</p> <p>3. Marriage, proof of: Proof of agreement of parties to take each other as husband and wife, followed by continuous cohabitation as such, sufficient. Meistcr v. Moore, 96 U. S. 76, 82.</p>

<p>1. Habeas corpus — Return to writ, or order to show cause: Upon, the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, or an order to show cause why such writ should not issue, the return should be explicit, giving facts which justify the detention.</p> <p>2. Same — Same—■Allegations of admissions: A return is not made sufficient by allegations of admissions by the petitioner of conduct which, if true, would show him to be unlawfully in the United States, when it contains no charges of such conduct.</p>

<p>1. Citizenship of alien women by marriage with United States citizen : An alien woman who might herself be naturalized on the ground of being a free white woman, becomes a citizen of the United States upon becoming the wife of a citizen, without regard to her moral character.</p> <p>2. Naturalization by marriage with citizen — Free white woman: No other requirement than that she is a “free white” woman is necessary for her recognition as a citizen of the United States upon such marriage.</p>

<p>In Admiralty: Libel in rem for wages and damages.</p>

<p>1. Negligence — Fellow servants: As a rule the master is not liable for injury to a servant caused by the negligence of a fellow servant in the course of the master’s business.</p> <p>2. Same — Incompetent fellow servant — Burden of proof: Where exception to this rule is claimed by a servant by reason of injury resulting from the master’s employment of an unskilled or incompetent fellow servant, the burden is on the injured servant to show the master’s negligence in employing or retaining the unskilled or incompetent servant.</p>

<p>Criminal Law: Demurrer to indictment.</p>

<p>1. Admiralty — Disobedience of seamen — Discharge: Admiralty precedents do not favor tlxe discharge of seamen for a single offense, unless it is of an aggravated character.</p> <p>2. Same — Same—Same—Reinstatement: A seaman discharged for such offense should generally be given an opportunity to return to the employment of the ship, with such penalty as is reasonable under the circumstances.</p>

<p>1. Evidence — Judicial notice: The court takes judicial notice of the recent tariff act, 38 Stat. 114, and of its depressing effect upon the stock market, and the sugar industry, in Hawaii.</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy — Administration; Sale of assets; Trustee’s duty: The trustee may be surcharged for loss arising from want of due diligence in reducing the property of the estate into money. In the case of assets of corporation stock, the court may surcharge for the difference between the amount actually realized from sale and a fair maximum figure reached in the open market, and justified by conditions, during the time when the stock could have been sold by the trustee.</p> <p>Reported, 32 Am. B. R. 344.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy: Motion for service by publication.</p>

<p>Criminal Law—Practice; application of Territorial statutes to United States District Court: A statute in force , in the Hawaiian Islands at the time of their annexation to the United States and continued in torce iii the'Territorial courts, providing that the successive disagreement of two 'juries" m\'a criminal case shall; ppéfate. as an adduitial/ does 'not, govern the United states District Court for the .Territory, of. Hawaii.' *<j¿í •'« -Pi. i ,i í« 11'» 'Jiv, 1 !íi? Ml»' e.Vinjí .LlíJ.f. 1 •A '* •!< i • f Í - >. « ¡ i 1 r •> < i < > I • H! . l í i ' il > 6 * a f í rs j 1 \ 1 S « Í . Í ‘íi i ‘" I Í '< il J ’ I , "i; 1 . /1 , h.jI. .< i . ■-!„ a . j i ■», k <. ¡i», -> s m ^ s1 it ■ • ,. 5 ( . i ( i i ’ v:i O'111.1 i ■; ' - í t < ' • «n: r.At -il JIM ' 1J« V,f' mI .4 !, I <!» r', il V M I » 1 l , I . J .'..'Wi !, ,i! 1 Í II . V .</p>

<p>'investigation by grand] jury:. witness’, claim -of privilege; ¿ontémpt in refusal ,to answer questions.</p>

<p>1. Indictment—Sufficiency of allegations—Breaking into postoffice: An indictment'does not charge an otfeAsé under Penal Code’, see. Í92, in alleging' “thé' breaking ■ add entering" a ‘certain building used "in whole or in part as a postofEice,” without describing the portion,-entered. as being .used .for.,postoffice purposes;.,.. . i <</p> <p>..2. Same—Same—Statutory crimes—Allegation in language, ¡of -sfat: ute: Tkodgh it is á general rule that it is sufficient to charge a statu* tory offense ’ in' thfe'larigú’ágé' of the statute,1'the rule1 is noí' satisfied unless the'pleading-is certain and unambiguous.' United States v. Lee Kaiffai, 3.U1S.. Dist. Ct. Haw. 627, ¡followed.-,- • • '■ ■ ••</p> <p>3. Same—Same—Pleading facts,, by inference:- In priminab-plead-ing an allegation of facts, is not to be supplied by implication, at least where the implication is not conclusive. ¡</p> <p>'4. Same—Same—Allegation by reference atiunde: Reference in one count of - an indictment' td facts stated'in another "'count is'not unavailing merely because the latter-count-tó!iiísüfficiettt-i;ii-ra"viC :</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Hearing on return to writ.</p>

<p>1. Admiralty — Evidence of position of a ship under way — Position in relation to line to landmark — Distance,: The testimony of a witness as to the position of a ship under way, in relation to a line from the witness to a conspicuous landmark, is more reliable than his estimate of the distance of such object from himself.</p> <p>2. Same — Two witnesses observing vessel from different points— Landmarks — Intersection of lines of direction to landmarks: Where two witnesses, observing a vessel under way from different standpoints, testify that her position at a particular time is on lines from their respective standpoints to conspicuous landmarks, which lines cross each other, such point of crossing fixes the position of the vessel and, coming from credible witnesses, may be regarded as conclusive.</p> <p>3. Same — Towing sailing vessel — Safe offing — Res ipsa loquitur: A sailing vessel without cargo or ballast was towed out to sea and let go by the tug before her crew had completed setting her sails. They had the heavy hawser to take in, the wind being baffling and changeable, and the sea against her; she attempted to gain the open sea, tacking several times to port and starboard but losing for tbe most part, and finally going asbore and becoming a total loss. Held tbat tbe doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, and the result showing tbat she was left in an unsafe place, — unless it should appear tbat the loss was due either to the fault of those on board or to inevitable accident.</p> <p>4. Same — Same—Responsibility of master after being let go: Under such circumstances the master was justified in persisting in the attempt to make the open sea up to the point where such, persistence would expose his ship to obvious danger. At such point he had a good opportunity of giving up such attempt and running in to a safe anchorage. Held that he should have made the most of such opportunity, and failing to do so made the owner liable, partially at least, for her subsequent loss.</p> <p>5. Same — Liability of tug for failure to give tow safe offing and subsequent assistance, and of tow for failure of good judgment and seamanship: Held, in view of the negligence of the tug in letting go of such vessel in an unsafe place, and her neglect to render assistance, when it became evident that she was losing ground and approaching danger in her attempt to gain the open sea, and of the failure of the master of such vessel to exercise good judgment and seamanship at such juncture, that both the owner of the tug and the owner of the sailing vessel were jointly liable for her subsequent loss.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy: On review of order of referee.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy: Question fox' review on certificate of referee.</p>

<p>I.n Bankruptcy: On review of order of referee.</p>

<p>1. Immigration — Deportation—Preliminary arrest, basis of: On. habeas corpus the court declines to consider the competency of testimony taken at a hearing before immigration officers in another case, which testimony led to the arrest of a landed immigrant as subject to deportation, when at all events the testimony was sufficient to arouse suspicion against the immigrant, which the evidence in the final deportation proceedings was ample to confirm.</p> <p>2. Same, — Same—Finality of findings: In deportation cases in which a fair hearing has been accorded, the findings of immigration officers are final.</p> <p>3. Same — •Same—Fair hearing, self incrimination: Claim of incrimination under duress, held not made out.</p> <p>4. Same — Same—Evidence—Husband and wife as witnesses: Deportation proceedings being civil in their nature, the local rule of competency of husband and wife applies.</p> <p>5. Same — Same—Hearing—Benefit of counsel: Where an immigrant arrested as deportable was represented by attorney if not personally present at the hearing following his arrest, and a brief in his behalf was filed by his attorney for consideration by the Secretary of Labor, it cannot be said that the immigrant was without benefit of eounsel.</p> <p>6. Same — Same—Authority of Acting Secretary of Labor: When the warrant of deportation shows the proceedings to have been determined by the Acting Secretary of Labor, the presumption is that he was authorized to act: and he who challenges this authority assumes the burden of proving its absence..</p>

<p>Habeas corpus — Petition for writ — Verification l A. petition for writ of habeas corpus should be verified by oath of the petitioner or of someone having knowledge of the facts upon which relief is asked, and as a general rule if allegations are made on information and belief, the source of information and belief should appear.</p>

<p>Habeas corpus: On motion to strike demurrer to petition, the writ having issued.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: On exceptions to return.</p>

<p>Aliens — Admission of Chinese — Habeas Corpus — Bail: Under the provision of sec. 5 of the Chinese exclusion act of May 5, 1892, 27 Stat. 25, that on an application to any court or judge of the United States in the first instance for a writ of habeas corpus by a Chinese person refused admission into this country, no bail shall be allowed, bail is not allowable upon the issuance of the writ, or before a final hearing on the merits after return to the writ.</p>

<p>1. Aliens — Immigration—Unfair hearing — Bias of immigration inspector: Claim of bias as shown in an alleged assault by an examining immigration inspector upon a witness for tbe immigrant, held not made out.</p> <p>[Yol. 4]</p> <p>2. Same — Same—Finality of finding of fact by immigration officer: A finding of fact by immigration officers on a bearing to determine an immigrant’s right to land, is final as a rule.</p> <p>3. Evidence — Experts—Qualifications: In order to qualify as an expert witness competent to give an opinion as to the nationality of a certain person, it is not necessary that the witness should be learned in the science of ethnology, but it is sufficient if he have long experience and familiarity with people of the race to which the person in question is contended to belong.</p> <p>4. Habeas corpus — Basis of petition: prejudicial omissions in record not remedied before the original tribunal: It is no ground for relief by writ of habeas corpus, that the record on appeal to the Secretary of Labor from a decision of immigration officers denying an immigrant a landing, is not absolutely complete, at least in cases where the immigrant has a reasonable opportunity to have the defect remedied before the original tribunals, and where the defect is not calculated or intended to work prejudice.</p> <p>5. Aliens — Immigration—Fair hearing — Representation by counsel: The mere fact that an immigrant is without counsel in hearings before immigration officers as to his right to land, does not make such hearings unfair.</p>

<p>In equity: Bill to set aside fraudulent conveyance.</p>

<p>1. Conflict of laws — Divorce according to Japanese procedure: Divorce by Japanese procedure is not recognized in tbe United States.</p> <p>2. Marriage by correspondence: Marriage by correspondence between parties living one in Hawaii and the other in Japan, is not recognized in the United States.</p> <p>3. Immigration — Board of special inquiry: A board of special inquiry under the immigration laws, made up of the immigration inspector, who makes a preliminary examination of an alien desiring to land and detains him for examination before such board, and two other immigration inspectors, is not a legal board, and is without jurisdiction to decide such alien's right to land.</p> <p>4. jSame — Decision of incompetent board refusing landing to.alien —Status of alien under such decision: An alien refused landing by a board so constituted, may not be detained in custody awaiting the determination of the respondent’s appeal, or a new trial of his right to land by a competent board, but may be discharged under bond to appear in case their decision should be reversed on appeal, and a new board of special inquiry be constituted to try the case.</p>

<p>1. Aliens — Chinese Exclusion Act — Admission of minor son of resident merchant, horn of a polygamous marriage. The minor son of a resident Chinese merchant, the issue of a marriage contracted by the father in China when the father had a lawful wife living in Hawaii, is not entitled to admission to this country, unless on other grounds than that of being the son of such resident, even though the prior marriage was dissolved subsequent to the son’s birth.</p> <p>2. Conflict of laws — Foreign marriage — Polygamous marriage and issue thereof: A marriage lawful in China will not be recognized here, so far as to warrant the admission as an immigrant, of the minor son of a Chinese resident merchant, the issue of such marriage, when the marriage was entered into during the existence of a prior lawful marriage contracted in Hawaii between the father and a woman other than the mother of the immigrant — except on another ground than the mere relation of father and son.</p>

<p>Jurors — Venire—Amendments: The venire for grand jurors bore the name of F. S. F. when the person shown by the court records to have been intended and whose name was drawn for service in accordance with Judicial Code, sec. 276, was F. B. F. Upon the marshal’s return of service showing that no such person as F. S. F. could be found, it is ordered that the venire be amended to correct the name to F. B. F. and the marshal be directed to summon him to appear forthwith.</p>

<p>Naturalization: On motion to substitute witness.</p>

<p>Criminal Law: Motion to quash.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: On application for writ.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Hearing on return to writ.</p>

<p>1. Obscene publications-. Question, of obscenity of published words or pictures, dependent on tbeir suggestion. If that tends to make the procreative functions of men and women subjects of levity, the law is violated.</p> <p>2. Same — The test: The impression such publications make upon a community of average men and women as to • their decency, and as to their probable effect upon the young.</p> <p>3. Same — Knowledge as to nature of publication: One exhibiting words and pictures is chargeable with knowledge of their character if he understands the words. In the case of nude figures accompanied with words, it is the duty of the exhibitor to acquaint himself with the meaning of the words in relation to the pictures before exposing them.</p> <p>4. Same — Combination of words and pictures: Where words and pictures are combined, it is the impression of men as a whole that is to be considered. It is no defense that the words or the pictures taken separately are unobjectionable, if their combination suggests indecency of conduct or calls forth impurity of thought.</p>

<p>Removal of causes — Suit on account of act done by- officer under color of office: A suit for damages for falsely charging the plaintiff with being a crook and an opium smuggler, such charge being made in the presence of others, by the Surveyor of the Port of San Francisco, an officer of the Customs of the United States, while investigating in Honolulu alleged unlawful importation of opium by persons other than and unknown to the plaintiff, is removable from a Circuit Court of the Territory of Hawaii to the United States District Court for the Territory of Hawaii, on the ground within 36 Stat. 1097, sec. 32, Act of March 3, 1911, of being a suit against an “officer appointed under or acting by authority of [a] revenue law of the United States . . . on account of [an] act done under color of his office or of any such law, or on account of any right, title or authority claimed by such officer . . . under any such law.’’</p>

<p>At Law: Motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction of person of defendant.</p>

<p>1. Criminal law — Former' conviction — Similarity of offenses: A conviction in the District Court of Honolulu for the unlawful possession of opium under the Territorial statute, It. L. Hawaii; 1915, sec. 2075, is no bar to an indictment in this court for the receipt, purchase, sale, concealment, etc., of opium under the Federal statute, 35 Stat. 614, am. 38 Stat. 275.</p> <p>2. Same — Evidence—Burden of proof — Possession of opium: This is true even though the Federal statute makes possession prima facie, evidence of receipt, purchase, concealment, etc., of opium.</p>

<p>Indictment: Flea in bar.</p>

<p>Indictmentx Motion to quash.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Hearing on return to writ.</p>

<p>Criminal Law: Motion to tax costs.</p>

<p>In Admiralty: Motion to strike plea in bar.</p>

<p>In Admiralty: Libel in rem for salvage.</p>

<p>1. Costs — Marshal’s fees and expenses — Service of petition: In the marshal’s hill for fees items of ?2 each for serving copy of petition and' copy of order for process are disallowed, and $1 allowed instead, following Swanscott v. Remsen, 76 Fed. 950, 951; 21 Dec. Comptroller, 439, 440 (Dec. 31, 1914). '</p> <p>2. Same — Same—Service of notice of monition upon publisher: There is no authority for the marshal’s charging for “service” of the notice of monition, upon the publisher. And the marshal’s act in such case does not constitute a “service.” United States v. A Lot of Silk Goods, ante, p. 137.</p> <p>' 3. Same — Same—Service of release and venditioni exponas: Item of “serving release and venditioni exponas” disallowed as covered hy the sale commission.</p>

<p> Approval of witnesses’ expense accounts. . </p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: On petition for writ.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy: On motion of clerk for allowance .of extra compensation for mailing notices to creditors.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: On return to writ.</p>

<p>Contempt of court — Disobedience of court order — Escape: An immigrant remanded in habeas corpus proceedings to the custody of immigration officers there to “remain as heretofore,” but who makes escape from such custody, is guilty of contempt of court, under Judicial Code, sec. 268.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Hearing on return to'writ.</p>

<p>Aliens — Naturalization—Javanese: A person of the Japanese race born in Japan, is not eligible to citizenship under the naturalization laws. Rev. Stat., sec. 2169.</p>

<p> Petition for naturalization. </p>

<p>Habeas Corpus: Plearing on return to writ.</p>

<p>Aliens — Immigration—Deportation—Effect of marriage to citizen: A Japanese alien woman, whose acts render her liable to deportation, cannot avoid deportation by marriage to a citizen.</p>

<p>1. Criminal lato — Pleas—Former acquittal — Variance.—Estoppel: Defendant cannot plead former acquittal as res adjudicata, when such acquittal was had on his own motion for a directed verdict based on the ground of a variance between indictment and proof.</p> <p>2. Same — Material variance: A variance in the proof as to the means used in committing a crime is a material variance. Thus, it is a variance to allege an attempt to smuggle by means of concealing jewelry upon the person and beneath the clothing, and to prove such attempt by false and fraudulent practices and statements that the smuggler had nothing in his pocket except money.</p>

<p>1. Evidence — Husband and wife — Competency as witnesses against co-defendants of each other in criminal cases: The Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 635, sec. 1 (Edmunds-Tucker Act) removing the Incompetency of husband and wife as witnesses as against each other in certain cases, does not apply to indictment for adultery, even as against a paramour of the witness’ spouse on the trial of both offenders under a joint indictment.</p> <p>2. Same — Same—Same-.—Testimony as to marriage: The husband of a female defendant in a case of adultery is not a competent witness to prove her marriage.</p>

<p>1. Clerks of courts — Clerks of Federal Courts — Deposit of moneys— Duty: Rev. Stat., secs. 995, 996, respectively provide tliat all moneys paid into any court of the United States or received by the officers thereof in any cause pending or adjudicated in such court shall be forthwith deposited with the Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, or a designated depositary, to the credit of the court, but that nothing shall be construed to prevent the delivery of any such money upon security according to the agreement of the parties under the direction of the court, and that no money shall be withdrawn, except by order of the court or judges of the courts. There is no statutory provision authorizing clerks of courts to require deposits to secure their fees specified by Rev. Stat. sec. 828, though such practice is authorized by the rules of court. Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, secs. 51, 52, 30 Stat. 558, providing for prepayment to the clerk of the fees of clerk, referee, and trustee, do not require such moneys to be forthwith deposited with the Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, or a designated depositary. Act March 3, 1841, c. 35, 5 Stat. 421, first reduced the emoluments of clerks of courts to sums less than the fees collected, and the United States, though a party to suits, is not required to pay clerks’ fees, unless the other sums received shall be insufficient to satisfy the expenses of his office and defray the clerk’s salary, while Rev. Stat. sec. 844 requires every District Court clerk, at the time of making his half-yearly return to the Attorney General, to pay into the Treasury or deposit to the credit of the Treasury any surplus of the fees and emoluments of his office, which the return shows there is existing over and above the compensation and office allowance authorized by law to be retained by him. Held, that a clerk of a District Court is not required to forthwith deposit with the Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, or a designated depositary, moneys deposited with him by parties to secure costs; there being no duty to make such deposit until the time of settlement, when the clerk is required to account for all sums in excess of those which he is allowed to retain.</p> <p>2. Courts — Clerks of courts — Duties of — Territory of Haioaii: Though Act April 30, 1900, c. 339, 31 Stat. 141, providing a government for the Territory of Hawaii, declares in section 86 that the District Judge shall appoint a clerk for the court at a salary of $3,000 per annum, the clerk is not relieved from the duty of making returns of liis earnings, and, being entitled to retain out of liis fees those sums necessary for the expenses of his office, is not bound to forthwith deposit with the Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, or designated depositary, the sums deposited with him as security for costs.</p> <p>3. Embezzlement — Offense—What constituees: Under Penal Code (Act March 4, 1909, c. 321) sec. 99, 35 Stat. 1106, declaring that whoever, being a clerk or other officer of a court of the United States, shall fail forthwith to deposit any money belonging to the registry of the court, or hereafter paid into court or received by the officers thereof, with the Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, or a designated depositary, in the name and to the credit of the court, or shall retain or convert to his own use or to the use of another any such money, is guilty of embezzlement, a clerk of the Federal court in Hawaii, who did not forwith deposit sums received by him as security for costs to be incurred, is not guilty of embezzlement, where none of such moneys belonged to the United States, and he had not refused to make ,the regular settlements for the surplus of fees and emoluments collected above the amounts he was entitled to retain for his services and expenses of his office. '</p> <p>4. Embezzlement — Offense—Wliat constitutes: In such case, as the clerk was not required to forthwith deposit moneys received as security for costs, the failure of the deputy clerk to make such deposits did not render him guilty of embezzlement, within Penal Code, section 99.</p> <p>5. Indictment and information — Validity-—Statutes: Where an indictment charging an offense follows the language of one particular statute and not that of a second it cannot be sustained as charging a violation of the second statute.</p> <p>6. Indictment and information — Offenses—Statutes: Penal Code, section 97, declares that any officer connected with or employed in the Internal Revenue Service of the United States, and any assistant of such officer, who shall embezzle or wrongfully convert to his own use any money or property of the United States, or any money or property which may have come into his possession or under his control in the exercise of such office or employment, or under color or claim of authority as such officer or assistant, whether the same be the money or property of the United States or of some other person or party, shall, where the offense is not otherwise punishable, be fined nbt more than the value of the money and property thus embezzled or converted, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. An indictment charged that a deputy clerk of the Federal court of Hawaii, who received moneys deposited with him as clerk of the court by parties to suits, actions, and proceedings to pay and secure the payment of costs in such proceedings, failed to forthwith deposit them with the Treasurer, ■ Assistant Treasurer, or with a designated depositary, and that he retained, embezzled, and converted to his' own use such moneys. Held, that as the clerk was not required to make such deposits, and as it did not appear that he had failed to account for such moneys at the regular periods for accounting, and that none belonged to the United States, the indictment did not charge an offense under the section.</p>

<p>In Admiralty: Exceptions to libel in rem.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy: On petition of referee to require witness to answer.</p>

<p>Internal Revenue — Possession as evidence of violation of revenue lavo: Ip a proecution upper the Harrison Narcotic Act, ?8 Stat- 785, the presumption of guilt arising under sec. 8 from possession of narcotic drugs, is applicable only to cases of possession indicating a violation of sec. 1, — i. e., possession by persons required to register but not registered under the latter section.</p>

<p>1. Habeas corpus — Writ, when not granted: The writ of habeas corpus cannot be employed as a substitute for writ of error.</p> <p>2. Same — Same: And should not be granted unless the judgment or writ by authority of which petitioner is held, is void.</p> <p>3. Same — Error in procedure not basis for writ; exception: Error in procedure does not render judgment void unless it consists in the exercise of jurisdiction when none exists or in excess of that conferred by law.</p> <p>4. Same — Error in admitting evidence not basis for writ: Error in admitting evidence is error in procedure and does not render "judgment void so as to warrant habeas corpus.</p> <p>5. Federal courts — Non-interference with other courts; exceptions: Federal courts should not interfere with proceedings in State or Territorial courts, except in cases of peculiar urgency.</p>

<p>1. Courts — Number of Judges constituting: Under the provision of the Organic Act, sec. 86 as amended, 35 Stat. 888, creating a United "States District Court for the Territory of Hawaii, to “consist of two judges’’ to hav.e and .exercise in that court all the powers conferred by the laws of the United States upon the judges of District and Circuit Courts of the United States, one such judge may carry on the work of the court even though there be a vacancy in the office of the other judge. Wherefore an indictment reported by the grand jury to such single judge presiding during a vacancy in the office of the other judge, is not supject to quashal on the ground that there is then no court.</p> <p>2. Indictment — Negativing matters cf defense: The fact that under the Act of January 17, 1914, 38 Stat. 275, amending the Act of February 9, 1909, 35 Stat. 614, prohibiting traffic in opium, opium other than smoking opium may be imported under certain regulations for medicinal purposes only, does not make it necessary for an indictment charging the unlawful importation of opium, to allege that the opium dealt with was smoking opium, or to negative the possible defense that the opium was within the excepted class of opium imported for medicinal purposes.</p> <p>3. Constitutional law — Due process of law — Statutory rules of evidence creating presumptions in criminal cases: Section'2 of the Act of January 17, 1914, 38 Stat. 275, prohibiting traffic in opium, which in certain cases places the burden upon a person indicted under the Act of “explaining” his possession to the “satisfaction” of the jury, is not unconstitutional as requiring the accused to establish his innocence: the rule of presumption thus created is to be interpreted as subject to the rule of “reasonable doubt” under the general burden of proof in criminal cases, and the defendant’s “explanation” in order to be “satisfactory” need only go as far as to raise such a doubt, — indeed, any doubt arising from the circumstances of the possession would itself satisfy the statute as regards the defendant’s burden without any special explanation by him.</p>

Action under the Tucker Act, Stat. 505, for damages resulting from abandonment of eminent domain proceedings: On demurrer to complaint.

<p>1. Adultery — Evidence: Held sufficient to warrant conviction and therefore to require submission to the jury.</p> <p>2. Same — Circumstantial evidence: Held sufficient to authorize the jury to find the circumstances to be incapable of any reasonable explanation consistent with the innocence of the defendant.</p> <p>3. Same — Name of defendant’s wife — Necessity of alleging— Variance: Allegation of name of defendant’s wife in indictment may Ije treated as surplusage, and variance between her name alleged and that proved, held immaterial.</p>

<p>1.' Aliens — Naturalization: Section 2169 of the Revised Statutes was not repealed by the Act of June 29th, 1906, “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” ■ etc.</p> <p>2.., Same — Same: Section 30 of the Act of June 29th; 1906, authorizes the naturalization of the class of persons specified, therein by applying to them all the applicable provisions of the laws providing for the" naturalization of aliens, and- relieving them from the necessity of renouncing foreign allegiance.</p> <p>3% , Same — Same: That one does not come within the’classes of persons ‘designated in section 2169, does not make it inapplicable to him. It applies to and forbids his naturalization unless he does come within one of the classes specified.</p> <p>4. Sanie — Same: It is no answer to say that the section applies to aliens, and that the applicant is not an alien. It is by virtue of the provisions of the laws for the naturalization of aliens, that he must be admitted, if at all.</p> <p>5. Same — Same: Section 30 itself applies all the provisions of the naturalization law in,eluding section 2169- of the Revised Statutes to' the persons specified therein. •</p> <p>6. Same — Same—Filipinos: A native of the Philippine Islands, of the Filipino race, being neither a white person nor of African nativity or descent, is not eligible to citizenship Under our naturalization laws.</p>

<p>1. Grand Jury — Reports by, proper limits of — Secrecy: It is improper, and a breach of the oath of secrecy, for a grand jury in a id-port of its doings, to comment on the failure of a persdn under its investigation to take the stand and testify in explanation of his alleged misconduct</p> <p>2. Same — Same—Comment on matters deyond jurisdiction: It is, also, lio't within the just powers Of a grarid jury of tliis Federal court to' make adverse' éo'riiments oii anybody’s qualifications, moral or otherwise, for an Office Held by Him under a distinct department, the department Of education Of the Hawaiian Territorial government, in no way within the court’s jurisdiction, — even though that person be under investigation by the grand jury.</p>