The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-05-12
Supreme Court
rspEcIL TERN. MAY I, 1869. ]


T1s Eag Is. J9hs B-0E7l.
Nr. Justice HAErwELL delivered The
I opinion Of the Court a. follows:
Defendant vas convicted al last April
T Term Of this Court. on acharge Of ualiciously
burning tie American ship E1Eg Philip, in
. the hzr5or OF Honolulu. on the 18Th Of March,
curTe1t- The BIZ Of Exceptions sets forth
I That At the trial OF said cause, the pros
ecuti0u, in order 10 show = motive Tor con-
hitting the otfenSe charged, were allowed to
introduce syidsnee OF certain threats, which
defendant made against the second mate Of
his vessel two or three days before the fire
> That after the Police Justice had testi-
fed that Que B1yIes. the principal witness
against the defendant, had been tried before
+ hin. and committed for the identical ofsuse
charged against defendant, principally on de-
feudaut's testimony, the evidence Of what
defendant had testified against said BayleS,
in his trial for commitment, was rot admit
ted either a. part Of the rs gsstas, or in
order to sG-ct the eredIbility Of the witness
Bayles. by showing the relation existing be-
tween him and defendant. and the motives
which Influenced him 10 testify IN the present
case.
3 That the verdict WIS contrary TO law
and evidence. unwarrauted BY the evidence,
and coutraryto the Instructions Of the Court
Exception was also taken upon the sufi-
cheney Of BAyIes's evidence, unless corrobo-
rated by other evidence, TO support the
charge. The evidence Of recent threats. By
the defendant, against oGe Of the officers Of
his vessel, vas properly admitted, tending to
show that the defendant vas disafected;
that be had 4 motive for desiring an fnmedi-
ate end Of his v0yaze; and that be was in
tending 10 resort TO violent modes. True,
ths i 10 urcoumon occurrence, ard nay
have existed with each member Of the ships
company, and such evidence should not
weigh much, but It certainly tends TO repeI
the suggestion Of accident or Negligence
Cook - Moore, II Cush-, 2f7: Bottomley
- {. 5, Story, ISL There can be no
doubt that BayIes vas competent witness:
our statutes make no provision for the dis
Qualification of witnesses, except to make
the real plaintiff or defendant in interest, in
competent.-ICivil Code, See Is1S- TWAS
argued, but We think without strict legal
propriety, that Bsyles WIS to be regarded as
an accomplish but We know Of no rule ofIaw
requiring the evits nce Of an aecompIice to be
eoroborated Il 5 highly proper to instruct
the jury Of the uutruztworthy nature Of such
evidence, and to caution them that It Is IN
safe to base 4 verdict of conviction solely
thereon, s1d that corroborating evidence Of
some point, essential to the issue, should 5e
given Such instruction was given, substan-
italy and in strong terms; and even If it
were not, II after al rests in the discretion
Of the Court, As matter OF practice, and !
conviction, upon the unsupported evideuce
Of N accoupiice, can not be set aside on that
zround-ICoumOuwealth =. soszorth. -
Pick, $50; Commonwealth ". Brooks. Q
Gray, 299; Regina vz- Boyes, FL B. & 5,
Sill It was properly left TO the jury,
whether BayIes's evidence was sunicieutIy
eorru5orafed-
The case presents 10 instance in which the
jury departed from the Instructions Of the
Court, and II uust be presumed that they
did their duty There Is no occasion to dis
trust the verdict, for insuficiency of evidence.
The motive, opportunity, facilities at hand.
expressed intention, the failure to give the
alarm, WHEN the fire would naturally have
been observed ~ the defendant. UPON his
watch, are in eTidenee- The Court having
decided what evidence can legally 20 TO the
jury, the responsibility Of inferring guilt or
innocence therefruu must, in this case. re-
main with them There Is always doubt Of
the degree, and Of the faet OF guilt. But
the doubt which must decide in the uris-
oner's favor, Is no fAueifuI or possible con
tiugency. The evidence does not 50 point TO
accident or 70 other agency AZ the cause Of
the fire, a. to authorize Us TO say that the
jury disregarded such doubt a. EouId, prob
ably, influence reasonable men
Concerning the admizzibIity Of the Police
Magistrates evidence, a. souztt, there Is
uore difficulty. The EeIl-estahIished rules
Of law forbid party from testifying in his
oEu behalf, While 10 person, whether party
OF Eit1ess, can ever be compelled to give
sTtieree 70 eTininzte himself, OF the maxim,
Ssa0 tszsfeT P-0.isTs se5psa1z- The principle
( = cd A. the eivl and COMMON laE, that
the evidence ola party, IN his own faEor, IS 50
liable 70 Be indaenesd b. peEz0azl interest
that II can not safely be relied upon, and Ief
to the jury Many Of the United State have
passed statutes admitting this clssz Of eyi-
ienee, subject to eross-exaninaiiou- No
Eueh statute, however. exists here Ii was