Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1883-02-03
zxlAA oh M1MA hoh MnnDhh.

The parents of Hama testified that Hama,
while her husband was suffering, went down
b the stream to wash clothes, and remained al
the work untirsfter his death; that she had
always lived on the best Of terms with her de-
ceased husband.
a native policeman testified that he came to
the house Of deceased shortly before his death;
that he asked Kamaile ~hai was the cause Of
his sickness, and was told in reply, that he
was suffering on account NJ his sins. Witness
denied having asked Kamaile eli he had eaten
any thing" as stated by the two previous
witnesses. He also said that deceased and
= Hama had no, lately been living on good terms,
and that deceased had complained TO him Of
his wiie's conduct, suspecting her Of inhdelity,
and requesting him to interfere that shon
time before Kamaie's death, he had entered
and searched the house Of a Chinaman upon
suspicion that Hama was there with the son-in-
law Of the Chinaman; but that the search was
futile; that few days after, he himself was
arrested upon information Of the Chinaman, for
a.tort in exceeding his duty; that his trial for
the offence charged vas TO have take place
the day after the death Of Ksmaile, who was
his only witness; but that the Subsequent arrest
Of the Chinaman and his son.in-Iaw on suspicion
Of completely in the murder Of Kamaile had
delayed the hearing; that after their release
he had been tried and fined SIS.
Mr.. Russell, in addressing the jury, dwelt
al some length upon the evidence produced to
show the affectionate regard that Hama had
always eyinced, as shown by the evidence,
towards her deceased husband; upon the fact,
as stated, that Kamaile had been ailing for
some time past, and that for long period
he had been subject TO paroxysms Of disease
not dissimilar FROM that Immediately preceding
his death. He also argued that there was no.
thing in the evidence connecting Hama with the
crime, supposing Kamaile to have. been muir
dered; and that the prosecution, having utterly
failed to trace any poison to her possession,
the jury should aoquit the prisoner.
Mr. Preston, for the prosecution, said he
did not think that fond and guiltless wife, as
Hama had been held up to be by her counsel,
would leave the side OF husband, suffering the
the agonies OF dissolution, to go and wash
ClOincs- lie sam Inc Nlltai OF CRIMINALS doubt
less had sometimes pangs Of rcmorse, and that
her conduct upon the occasion could only be
explained upon the supposi,ion that her con
science began to prick her, and that she could
not stay to witness the suffering she had caused.
He said il was not the habi, OF assassins 10 do
their work in the presence OF witnesses, and
it was nothing strange that Hama should have
done her work in the absence OF such; that if
ocular proof ofthe act fthe poisoner were ne
eessay foraconviction, poisoning would become
mode OF assassination Of more common reson.
He wished the jury to bear in mind al tie cir
cumstances connected with the case the indis-
putable evidence, Of poisoning; the fact Of he
woman's trouble with her husband; the eharac-
teristic rapid effects OF the poison used which
pointed to the fact OF its administration after
deceased and Hama had lefi the house Of her
parents; the fact that the deceased was blind
and could not have got the poison himself;
tina, the parties had been alone since their de-
parture from the house Of Hana's parents; and
that dog and ca. had died about the same
time as Kamaile.