Territory of Hawaii v. Kauai

Hawaii Supreme Court

Territory of Hawaii v. Kauai

18 Haw. 341, 1907 Haw. LEXIS 17

DecidedJune 12, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Haw. 341 (Territory of Hawaii v. Kauai) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Territory of Hawaii v. Kauai, 18 Haw. 341, 1907 Haw. LEXIS 17 (haw 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OP THE COURT BY

FREAR, C.J.

In each of these cases the defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor in the district court of North Kona, costs of court being included in the sentence, and the defendant appealed but did not pay the costs accrued, whereupon the circuit court, upon motion, dismissed the appeal. The only question now raised on the exceptions is whether payment of costs accrued .in a district court is a prerequisite to an appeal to the circuit court in a criminal case.

This is clearly so under the terms of section 1858 of the Revised Laws, but it is contended that that section is controlled in this respect by section '2819, which provides that “it shall not be lawful to take, demand or receive any court fees for the issuing of any process/’ etc., for or on behalf of any person charged with any felony or misdemeanor, “but all costs may be ordered to be paid by the person charged and convicted as part of the judgment.” These two sections are hardly inconsistent. One refers to the payment of fees before conviction, [342]*342the other to appeals after conviction, but if there were any inconsistency between them the section relating to appeals would control. It is of a more specific character with reference to its particular subject matter; its original was of later date than the original of section 2819 (see L. of 1905, Act 3, Sec. 6); and it has been uniformly acted upon as controlling.

E. G. Peters, Attorney General, for the Territory. G. F. Maydwell for defendants.

The exceptions are overruled.

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

OPINION OP THE COURT BY

FREAR, C.J.

In each of these cases the defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor in the district court of North Kona, costs of court being included in the sentence, and the defendant appealed but did not pay the costs accrued, whereupon the circuit court, upon motion, dismissed the appeal. The only question now raised on the exceptions is whether payment of costs accrued .in a district court is a prerequisite to an appeal to the circuit court in a criminal case.

This is clearly so under the terms of section 1858 of the Revised Laws, but it is contended that that section is controlled in this respect by section '2819, which provides that “it shall not be lawful to take, demand or receive any court fees for the issuing of any process/’ etc., for or on behalf of any person charged with any felony or misdemeanor, “but all costs may be ordered to be paid by the person charged and convicted as part of the judgment.” These two sections are hardly inconsistent. One refers to the payment of fees before conviction, [342]*342the other to appeals after conviction, but if there were any inconsistency between them the section relating to appeals would control. It is of a more specific character with reference to its particular subject matter; its original was of later date than the original of section 2819 (see L. of 1905, Act 3, Sec. 6); and it has been uniformly acted upon as controlling.

E. G. Peters, Attorney General, for the Territory. G. F. Maydwell for defendants.

The exceptions are overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Haw. 341, 1907 Haw. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/territory-of-hawaii-v-kauai-haw-1907.