18 Haw. 509 | Haw. | 1907
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
There are on the calendar of this court twenty-seven cases, including the above entitled cause, of appeals by the Territory from decisions of tax appeal courts upon the income taxes of corporations.
Owing to the fact, as it now appears, upon suggestion by the court that two of the justices of this court have relatives within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity who own shares of stock in one or more of these corporations, the court, before determining whether the justices were thereby disqualified, requested preliminary argument on the question from the attorneys in the cases. The attorneys have expressed the opinion, partly based on construction of the statute and partly on decisions of several state courts upon similar statutes, that the justices are not disqualified and that it is their duty to sit.
The question depends upon the meaning of the statute “That no person shall sit as a judge or juror in any case in which his
According to the decisions in many-of the states a judgment by a disqualified judge is void and no jurisdiction can be secured by consent. See citations 11 Ene. of Law, 742. Hence it is highly important not only to observe all disqualifying provisions of law but that the disqualifications be clearly defined by law in order to avoid uncertainty in the administration of justice. It is obvious that frequently a judge may, without knowing or having the means of knowing the fact, have a relative who holds stock in a corporation which is a party litigant in his court, and yet his knowledge or ignorance of the fact would be immaterial if its existence is a disqualification. It
Under the existing facts it is undoubtedly true that the statute does not disqualify the justices mentioned and it is therefore their duty to sit in the cases.