American Samoa v. Simi

High Court of American Samoa

American Samoa v. Simi

2 Am. Samoa 643

CourtHigh Court of American Samoa

DecidedJanuary 29, 1949

DocketNo. 1-1949

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Am. Samoa 643 (American Samoa v. Simi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering High Court of American Samoa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Samoa v. Simi, 2 Am. Samoa 643 (amsamoa 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

MORROW, Chief Justice.

Simi was convicted in District Court No. 4 of trespass, a violation of Sec. 882 of the Code and sentenced to pay a fine. He appealed. The High Court heard the case de novo at Iliili on January 27,1949.

The testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, viz. Sagia, and Fosi, does not warrant a conviction. The alleged trespass consisted of entering upon the land of Sagia and planting .thereon coconuts and bananas. Not a single [644]*644prosecuting witness had any knowledge that any such trespass was committed by the defendant and each such witness so admitted on the stand. Each prosecuting witness admitted that he relied upon a hearsay statement made by a Faifeau to the effect that the defendant had committed the alleged trespass. Such hearsay testimony was not admissible and cannot be considered by the court.

There being no evidence to warrant a conviction, Simi is found not guilty and is discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DECISION

MORROW, Chief Justice.

Simi was convicted in District Court No. 4 of trespass, a violation of Sec. 882 of the Code and sentenced to pay a fine. He appealed. The High Court heard the case de novo at Iliili on January 27,1949.

The testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, viz. Sagia, and Fosi, does not warrant a conviction. The alleged trespass consisted of entering upon the land of Sagia and planting .thereon coconuts and bananas. Not a single [644]*644prosecuting witness had any knowledge that any such trespass was committed by the defendant and each such witness so admitted on the stand. Each prosecuting witness admitted that he relied upon a hearsay statement made by a Faifeau to the effect that the defendant had committed the alleged trespass. Such hearsay testimony was not admissible and cannot be considered by the court.

There being no evidence to warrant a conviction, Simi is found not guilty and is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Am. Samoa 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-samoa-v-simi-amsamoa-1949.