The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-06-04

might from this be raised, whether the lncau-
tious conduct of the prosecutor did not excuse
the defendant. 1t could be reasonably said that
Father Larkin would not build a house to fall
upon himself. He took all the precautions Gus
tomary in a civilized community. He main
tanned that as society is constituted, If a gentle
man employed an architect. one known to be IN
repute by the character of his other engage
ments, in this instance the architect Tor the
palace, he would throw off all the responsibility
and would reasonably feel that every precautlon
had been taken. Unless it could be shown that
Father Larkin subsequently, received a warning,
there was no case against him. His own acts
were those of a man conscious of the building
being safe. lie was in it daily-in 1t htteen
minutes before it fell. The view of the absence
of any testimony fixing a scienter-in view OF
the straight forwardness of his conduct through
out-and in view of the sacred Office he held,
Father Larkin, was entitled to immediate DIS
missal of the case.
Mr.. Preston, addressing the Bench in reply,
said it was the first time in his life that he had
appeared to prosecute any one OF the defend
ants cloth, and it was painful to him to have to
do so. The prosecution did not lmpute any
malicious conduct TO Father Larkln, but they
maintained that it was through his culpaDie
omission and neglect that David Paahao lost his
life. The law was tender of the life of every
man, and it was immaterial to his case that
there was no question of ntent-a man might
be guilty without any purpose to become SO, a
mere failure to perform a duty may make a man
gum VI AAD' $4,000
there not on record where verdlctS OF man
slaughter had been given against engine drivers,
when their careless conduct had resulted III loss
of life ? IF each of them it might also be
said, Z" he did not think there was any danger,
or he would not have risked his own life
Sorry as he was to present it before the Court,
he maintained that the testimony which had
been produced was sufficient to lead the Court
to say that this defendant should go before a
Jury. If the defendant had the means OF ac-
during the knowledge that the building was
unsafe, he was as much guilty of manslaughter
as if he had been expressly warned OF the
danger. 1t might be that Mr.. Wall was equally
guilty with him, but that did not eXOnerate the
defendant. When Wall had told him that the
building was not safe until propped up, 1t was
his duty to have warned all people who went
into the building after Z O'Clock on the Friday
morning, that there was the risk OF an accident,
and that they should be careful.
Mr.. Russell. There is nothing In the testi-
mony to show that he was told the building was
unsafe"
The Bench. Wall referred him to the I'M
safe state of the plaster"
Mr.. Preston. Taking all the circumstances
together; taking the evidence of Hayseldeu, and
the evidence of Wall that the day before the
building was not plumb, this was enough -
warn the defendant and to warrant his committed.
Nh. Dole, with the leave of the Bench, To
! ferred to one point that had been omitted in his
learned colleagues addresses, 1t is said that the
additional supports ordered on Friday are
evidence that the building was known to be un-
safe. But the testimony is not to that effect;
simply that it was necessary to meet the strain
that would come on the building from a crowd
of dancers. Defendant had no warning that the
place would be dangerous during the afternoon.
Judge Bickerton said that he had allowed the
testimony to run through his mind, not only as
given in that Court, but also that taken during
the previous enquiry. The first point he had
decided in his own mind was that Father Larkin
had authority and control over that building.
Now, it was very evident that that building had
been in a dangerous condition since the time
that it was finished. By the evidence of Horribly
it appeared that it was necessary to put up
braces the very day it was finished.
Father Larkin here obtained leave to make a
statement as follows No one had even told
him that the place was unsafe. On his oath he
could say that, and Mr.. Wall and others would
swear the same. To show how unconscious he was
of any danger, he referred to the fact that he
allowed the Kings band to practice in the place.
Any one would suppose that the big drum and
the sound of so many musical instruments
would have revealed it if there were cause to
suspect insecurity. From purely philanthropic
motives, aud because they wished to honor their
chief, he had sought leave from the Bishop for
the fremen to have the use of the hall.
Judge Bickerton continued: The omission
to do what Il man of intelligence might be eX-
pected to do became in such a case a criminal
neglect. \ man was supposed to use his COM
mon sense in what he did. When iron rods
broke in a building, We're repaired, and then
broke again, there was warning of danger. The
fact that there was need to put the props up
should, he thought, have proved enough to
cause a man to prohibit any one from entering
the building.
Father Larkin again entreated to be heard.
The same precautions as to setting props to the
building had been deemed necessary on a pre-
vious occasion, because a large crowd was ex-
pected, so there was nothing to awaken sus-
picion in the fact that they were recommended
on the second occasion.
Judge Bickerton resumed. He wished to give
defendant the benefit of every doubt, but he had
a duty to perform. He felt satisfied III his own
mind that it was probable that a jury would fin!
defendant guilty, perhaps not as charged, bat
III a lower degree, and therefore he now com
mitted him for trial at the July session of the
Supreme Court.
Bail was fixed at 50, 600.
Charles J. Wall was then arraigned on a like
charge, and having waived examination, was
committed for trial. Bail as in the former case.
1t being understood that suitable bail would
be rendered for Father Larkin on the following
day; he and Mr.. Wall were allowed to return to
their homes for the night. On Thursday the
requisite bail in Father Larkin's case having
been arranged, Mr.. Wall was released on his
own recogniZance.