The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1881-04-20
Hawaiian Gazette Supplement, April 20, 1871.

uencrd. therefore yOz must give the prisoner The
heneft u the motive. Humanity. justice. and Law
sho1ld give hirn the benefit Perhaps Ia Lee
struck the frs blow. AL that Was heard between
them was about money IL therr was pruvccation
the malice was taken away, and then u becomes
ruansianchter. There was an alteration about
nozey IN the house. and when questioned al
kEilra- be told them be had had = hight II Vas
not Absolutely nscsSsary that there should b
z blows O. constitute ProvOcation- There mus; h1ye
been some motive for committing the act be
tie harmed COUNSEL believed Il there had been
roeGical skill a. had. the deceased might have
E been saved.
Z Wi.h regard 10 the second prisoner Leong Shss
How. his tsstin,ory 10 be believed before that
e Lal No~- lie went 20 Ia Lees ho1se with
IeonC Lung for the p1lpose. as be thought Of
. hooking for employment. After having smoke
II the houSe. be went oct a1uo-ssst the banana
trees- be hezrd halloolne and rAn towards the
hoGse. BE Was not PARTICIPANT II the aHar a.
all There was 10 connection between HIM and
the assault The FRS. witness lzl loE- sud this
prisoEer WAS - far OF az the time he heard the
screams IL there vas any doubt about the state
r-erts Of these two persons Lai fOS and Leo1g
Skee How the prisoner Is entitled 70 the BENEFIT Of
that duubt
NJ. PRESTON addressed the jury on behalf Of the
Crown. he vocld deal with the case Of Leong
L-rc frSt He co1ld not subscribe 10 the theory
Of his learned friend that there was malice BE
thoGzht that the Jury wocld agree with him that
rralice Of the most diahohcsil nature vas shown.
be quoted frum the Penal Code on tie subject Of
did the knife belong Z The p-esunlpttJn must Be
that LeOuC lung took Il With him 70 XII ha Lee
FOR satisfaction % his debt. L Is a new weapon
Nth human blood on i. IL Is IN evidence that hs
Lev could not pay him what he owed him. de
killed him ard ran away. lai Vow saw the blow
struck. In tins statement he Is borne oct by the
second prisoner. Ii would bs presumption On his
part 10 further occupy the time ct the Iry. as the
evidence =as conclusive thzt Ha Lee vas SOunded
hv Leoug Lung. The wounds were mortal and
Mud prove fatal under any c1rcuust1ncss. The
Chinese or the spot did the hesshey could for the
deceased They bound hrs 'EuSlrts up Wiz totacco
lsaves % stop the dow Il blssd. The defendant
must not be favored because tie deceased dld not
have medical attendance be did not think there
could be Any doubt abo1t hiss being found guilty
OF UurCer-
He would nov take the oase Of Leong Shee How.
According 10 his idea OF the Law, the prisoner Is
guilty u murder the sane time there are elr-
cGuSsancss =hich would Justify an otheer Of the
COurt IN recO1Ilsuctng him % a favorable coy
sideration. Il depended upon the statement OF
la N0= and that of the prisoner himself Pos-
sIbly they both afraid NJ TIE time OF the r-
der X l. for you- gentlemen q the jury 10 Judge
whose statement Is true. and 70 give the prisoner
the benefit II the doubt, If any. The prisoner had
felix The weight u his gait ever since his arrest
De thought that they ought 70 md both men
guilty, bot In the case Of this one, eOCpled with
such rccommsndaticns Is they might think nee
essay.
Justice NeCuIy IN his charge said: Two men
are indicted fo- murder on the same testimony; l
alder the abettOr i charged BY the prosecution
wIth murder ami by 0ur law the alder Is equally
guilty as the principal.
h < rot correct o. true that homicide cannot
be murder accompanied by e1citsnent or pas-
sion Il Is hardly possible 70 Kill without passion.
Cold-blOoced Ecrders are almost unknown ne
crssstr5n a 70 malice thought Is clsary shown
tv the Circumstances. There Is no doubt that the
k1-uici6e was murder Ihs cieaver Is not the
property Of the decelseC Il vas carried there by
the principal be went there 70 collect money Lee
told him be was unable % pay, the prisoner re-
minded him that be had promised to pay they
had sons CONVERSATION IN the house and then went
Jur- This butChery vas commenced before The
witness Isl IoW gut Out Of the h01se. There vas
10 proofoE any weapon II Lees homs- Where Is
the prp1f gt @ quarrel. except the refusal 70 pay
u1oaFv Thc urrucipal i reported to have tod the
witness from hailr1 th8t be had had hght; this
L rot testimony IN his favor YOU are to presume
there WIS usllcs. If VOC CONSIDER there was no
Justification or eNteuuati0n vUu mus md him
-uilty Of uuruer-
With regard 70 the second prisoner his visit 10
tts premises usls u0- fslouIous: be did not know
what they went there for; their visit vas legltl
mate one. Is there any proof that the coudCct OF
This nan promoted the murder! Is there any
proof thai there vas anything cuucerteds The
witness l4ai Vow and tins prisoner were running
IN different directions when they struck When III
the witness box lie had been speaking for his
life Mt everyone can Do the most prudent thing
when q hsull,lde Is Committed he acted under
srddel- rIrr1Esstauces. be ran 70 his home and
staysd there. probably not ku0v1l, be Was fI-
rllcsted he Implicated himself BY having told a
faislhood % AEaua- tLs interpreter. when nrst
found. Does his testimony differ widely from La
Vows. as pe-sl-s riZcsd In opposite POSITIONS
Io1 cannot ind him guilty # hs had not the IL
rertI0u to prevent The as=stance Of LlI HoE beng
given % Al Lee-
His Hou0r then pointed out the relation man
slaughter N Is different degrees, bore % murder
The Jury resL-ed- and after an absence OF htty
Minutes returned the following verdict: -Leong
Luuz guilty. LeJnS Shea How. not gzllty.7 HE
last named person vas discharged
The Court passed sentence on Monday The
prisoner vas asked If be had anything % say, and
lie replied that he had not HE prisoner was
quite calm Ihs execution Is 70 take place On
July ist-