Lewis

Lewis appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii affirming a judgment of the Hawaiian .district court convicting him of a violation of the Hawaiian law against procuring and pimping. Lewis contended before the Hawaiian Supreme Court and contends here that he was denied due process because after he dis closed to the trial court he was without funds to employ counsel, counsel for him was appointed by that court on April 7, 1952, and the case ordered for trial and the trial began in less than twenty-four hours on April 8, 1952.

The record shows no motion of the appointed counsel for a continuance, but does show that on April 8, 1952, “both parties being ready to proceed,” the im-panelment of the jury went forward. Apparently, nothing in the course of the trial embarrassed Lewis or his counsel because of the short time for preparation of the case, for no motion for a new trial was made to the trial court on that or any ground. The transcript of the trial proceedings is not before us.

In these circumstances we are unable to hold that due process, which must affirmatively appear, was denied Lewis. He well could have told his counsel: “Go ahead, I have no…