The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1867-01-19
Trials DNJurN-


In the Supreme Cy1rtoa Wein=~--y As;,
bf.re Associate Justice I-eri~n. cl% VS.
submitted 70 the jury ofno lizzie Importance,
and one which. a. publ journalists, We .U4 Il
cur duty 70 comment UpC- = man n2zea jas
&. Holden va p~r=-eate By the Attorney zen
erll. By Indictment uah CHAPTER i. Sections
3 and : Of the Penal ode, Tor having. on the
Sth Of the present. nom. attempted the crime
Of rape on-gr, on tire ec1nd count 81 the in
dictment. that Of abiuc5n With TIE intention 10
carually dafl-a fema. child under the age Of
ten wears. WIlh0u: rebsal=:r- the r@=yO.t.ng
details Of the testimgu iJr rhe Prosecution, with
which the public have e this become sufficient
" acquainted, al rals1n, We must record the
fact rhat the th~inkins,orriOn OF the community
were no. q little as,Jnhed 70 hear, on T~aurs3ay
morning. that q verdi, Of not gritty had been
rendered BIZ ten ont @ twelve of the jurors who
SAT- On the ea@. W heard tae uHimPeached
testimony a5tuc-l 10: lie Crown We noted the
APPEARANCE u the wiuesss. wro were. tcr M
tive=, unusually Straightforward and cJsrooUE--
tive in their eFid-uc- We heard the very lucid
aud IMPARTIAL Gar.sOt the Judge. and We are.
we must confess, atA perfect loss ~ account for
such q verdict. Lit - not be understood q
desiring - imp7zn in Jhe slightest degree, the
integrity Of tie individual! members OF ihe jury
in tbis case of be Crown IS. Holden. while We
assert. without Califca,ion, tha, their verdict
furnishes one ME and = powerful argument 10
those who al the resent day are eoutendiug for
the doing away u,irsly OF the jury system in
Courts Of justice
And We may ie,e appropriately inquire lnow
that the case h4sp4ssed cut Of the Court. and =
public property II free ~conuent) what may We,
in this Island Kingdom, with - mixed a poFu-
lation. expect tom future jury trials, when
perchance the cas- shall Be rereTsed. and I nGtice
may be Ihe aggszse0r in = Ike case Of the one
under consideration. and the child Of u JareigueT
HE Evorits little daughter. let u suppose, .Le
pet Of the fAmilv-is subjected % such a beastly
ordeal. and threatened with such an inhuman
outrage a. the unchanged - attempted BY the ce-
PENDANT in this ca.. Let our readers put the ques-
ton home 10 theE own hearts and PROFOUND IL 10
themselves when seated among their own fam
ilies-if they are - far blessed a. TO have wife
and children-hOE would thai feel under pre-
cisely similar circlIstances, were a native jury
to bring in a verde. of not guity, and release
again such q l.b-l on humanity to continue IN
punished his coure If crime.
The sayings ana doings in 4 jury room ought
to he particularly sacred and never revealed, but
we betray no secret when We state that when the
jury in the above case retired to consult upon
their verdict, they Immediately, and without
discussion, took . vote. which stood eight nr
conviction and fosr fo$ acquit;al. Now what
led TO the final -e.ult OF ten for acquitIal and
two Gall praise to that sturdy tTo) FOR convic-
ton? Ii was tlis. One Of the ~jurymen asked
and obtained Of the Marshal, through permission
of the Court, 4 copy Of the Penal Code, in which
was laid down ue extreme penalty Of the law
always to be imposed in the discretion Of the
Court-for the Jiense charged. Tie penalty IL
heavy not to exceed five years Imprisonment
and one Thousand dollars fine for the ofense
charged in the first count, and for that of the
second not to exceed three years imprisonment
and a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.
1t would seem that the JOY, On r--dins ,he~a
penal provisions - which, however, had been
again and again read in their hearing by the
Court and also by counsel became suddenly
appri=ed that the punishment, in its extreme
limit, was very severe. They, or the majority Of
them, believed the nan to be guilty, but not 50
guilty as that he ought to be punished with from
three to FIVE years in the chain-gang and also
nav q fine of from FIVE hundred 70 a thousand
dollars. To be site, the term of servitude and
the amount Of fine could be, in the discretion oil
the Court, reduced 50 much as to be merely
nominal, but then perhaps the Court would not
be leniently inciined. and would mete out 4 Sc
we're penalty. And 50, arrogating to themselves
a duty beyond thor province-that of fixing the
penalty-they ignJred the guilt - apparent, and
let the accused go free. Free perhaps to indulge
his base proFensitis in other lands, and to boast
of his exploits and his escaPade in the Sandwich
Islands.
We have commented freely, and perhaps Sc
verely. upon the c.se, but without personal feel
ing. and solely from q strong sense OF our bound
en- duty as a public journalist.