Caminos

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii affirming a judgment of conviction of the appellant upon two consolidated indictments charging the receipt of bribes.

Five specifications of error are argued, the general nature of which may be indicated by reference to specifications 1 and 2. Specification 1 has to. do with the admission of evidence concerning the acceptance or solicitation of bribes other than those covered by the seven counts of the consolidated indictments. Rejecting this claim of error, the Supreme Court held the evidence material and competent as showing intent, scheme, general plan and relationship of the defendant [who was a police officer] to the particular type of crimes for which he was on trial. Specification 2 relates to the denial of appellant’s motion for a directed verdict on the ground that there was a fatal variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof. The argument in this particular is patently frivolous. It is that the indictments charged the defendant with receiving bribes from one Paul Au, whereas the proof was directed to showing that Paul Au paid the bribes to one Clark, a go-between, and…