
    SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.
    OCTOBER TERM—1872.
    
      Allen, Ch. J., Hartwell and Widemann, J. J.
    
    The King vs. Waahia (w.) and Hana Kaaiahua (w.)
    Motion eor new Trial on Exception to the Yerdict, as UNSUPPORTED BY AND CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE.
    New trial is not granted when there is evidence to sustain the verdict.
    The defendants were complained of for practicing medicine without license. The evidence was, that “ Hana went after Alona with the intention of having Waahia as his physician, and took him to her (Hana’s) place, February 6th, 1872. Waahia directed Hana how to prescribe (prepare) the. medicine for Alona. First, the medicine was given to the patient to drink and some of it he was bathed with. Second, there were ti leaves tied into knots and applied to the affected parts. Third, there was a stone scraped into a bowl and the patient made to drink a quantity of the mixture, and some of it was applied externally. This last process was February 16th. We stopped with Waahia one whole week and then Alona died. The first week we stopped at Hana’s house Waahia was not stopping there. I paid Hana |30.63 for Waahia. I did not see Waahia doctoring Alona. Hana gave him the potions first, for Waahia was not present. Hana prepared the mixtures. The money was given to Hana,‘who said it was for Waahia.” Alona’s wife also testified that “he was doctored by Waahia. Hana came for him. Hana told her to go away or her husband would die, so did Waahia. Bid not see Waahia doctor her husband.” In Waahia’s separate trial Hana denied everything that would implicate either of them.
    W. C. Jones for the exceptions.
    . S. H. Phillips, Attorney General, (L. McCully with him) contra.
    
    Honolulu, December 4th, 1872.
   OPINION 03T THE COURT BY

HARTWELL-, J.

The motion for new trial is denied, as the record shows evidence in each case tending to support the verdict. To prepare and administer potions and receive compensation therefor, even although at the bidding of another, is sufficient to constitute the offence charged. Whether Hana acted as Waahia’s agent or partner is immaterial. The law recognizes no partners in criminal business, nor can agent or principal shift criminal responsibility on each other. To send for a patient, direct his treatment, order prescriptions, and through another to receive fees therefor, is also sufficient to constitute the- offence. Affirmative evidence of such acts is not to be set aside by this Court by reason of evidence that the defendant Waahia was not “ stopping ” at the house of the defendant Hana while the patient was suffering at the hands of one by the direction of the other. Waahia seems from the evidence to have been the moving spirit of the transaction. Her personal presence over the patient while her drugs were taking effect was not required in order to make out a case of practicing medicine without a license.

The negative and the contradictory evidence in such case was for the jury to consider, and is not ground for the Courts to act upon. Exceptions overruled.  