The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1885-01-16

hemmed in, as by wall or ditch.
His duty was to escape--that was
the law of this country-and man
had no right to use violence If lie
had chance TO escape. 1t was
their duty to consider whether in
this case any injury would have
been inflicted upon the defendant
which could not have been redressed
by his friend the Police Magistrate.
If there was no extreme danger our
laws would have afforded all neces-
sary protection to defendant What
was the duty of Bridges under these
circumstances? A man may not
say, 81 believe my life is in dan
GER" in excuse for homicide. Ii
| that was an extenuation there would
be no occasion for jury. Would
reasonable man believe his life was
in danger, or that he was in danger
of severe bodily injury? His Honor
did not agree with the Attorney
General that defendant would have
been justified in firing one shot
The law did not justify him in using
any more violence than was neces-
sary in repelling the assault. 1t was
not case of necessity. A man was
not obliged to take life until all
other means were exhausted. am
asked to charge you on behalf of
defendant that if he had been in
bodily fear of his life he was s'justi-
fled in firing. l decline to do so.
They were to decide what effect the
threats against defendant had upon
him by his actions subsequently to
being threatened. They need not
trouble themselves about the unfor.
tunate relations said to exist be-
tween the deceased and Bridges.
Nor were they 10 weigh in their
minds which of the two men was
the more valuable to society. They
might also leave out of the question
whether, in killing the deceased, the
defendant was defending the honor
of his family. They had only to
consider the events that occurred at
five minutes after five on the fatal
evening. How was defendant
struck? Did he have an opportunity
of seeing what weapon was in his
assailant's hands? That it was a
weapon from which any man was in
peril Of his life? They must con-
slider whether defendant had any
means of escape. If Bridges had
any means of escape he should have
availed himself of it. Because n
man is nervous OF timid does not
justify him in using a weapon. If
that was justification many of lis
would be in danger from our ner-
vous friends. He could not rule, as
asked by counsel, that if Bridges
had been satisfied that threats were
made on his life, they should acquit
him. Mere threats of bodily harm
will not justify violence, nor when
circumstances show that the threats
were TO be carried out. He would
rule, as requested, that where an act
had been done to show that the
threats were to be carried out there
was justification of violence. He
was asked to rule that if defendant
was in nervous or exciteable condi-
ton when assailed, they could find
him guilty of lower degree than
that charged. That was not the
law. AS to self-defence, he had
already stated that the Crown was
bound to prove that the act was not
done in self-defence. A reasonable
doubt in favor of the defendant
must be one for which they could
give reason, such as they would
act upon in all affairs of life. His
Honor complimented the jury fol
their attention, and congratulated
himself that though they were Of
different nationalities they were men
who would do simple justice to theiI
fellow-being. Their duty was not
one of sympathy to the father of q
family but to themselves as members
of the community. He believed