The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-07-11
to produce false testimony in support of a

shooting was unsupported by any other wit
ness. The first shot was not fired anywhere
near the spot Marks testified to. There is
moral improbability that Mr.. De Young
made a motion to draw pistol. He die
not want to shoot Mr.. Spreckels. What
should he do it for. He had no reason to
shoot Mr.. SpreckeIs. He did not know that
| Mr.. Spreckels was following him into bis
office. 1t is not likely that when he went
peacefully into his Office he would thrust his
hand into his pocket to draw his pistol. Is
! there a semblance Of truth in the story? Is
! it likely that if Mr.. De Young had put his
| hand i'll his hippocket, he would not have
drawn his pistol before Mr.. Spreckels had d
chance to draw his? There was nothing TO
cause Mr.. De Young 10 believe that there
was any desire on the part of Spreckels to
kill him, after the latter had called him twice
by his name in polite manner"
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. De Young to
stand up and remove his coat and shirt to
illus trate to the jury that the wounds could
not have been received if the parties occu-
pied the positions described by Mr.. Spreckels.
Mr.. McAllioter objected, claiming that
the evidence was closed and no more teSti-
mony could be introduced.
Mr.. Campbell stated that he would not
ask Mr.. De Young one H4ues ton, but simply
show the wounds the same as lac. would
show pistol to the jury.
The Court overruled the objection, and
the defense noted an exception. Mr.. De
Young removed his coat aud tore the sleeve
Of his shirt, exposing his bare shoulder
with the bullet marks.
Mr.. Campbell asserted that the wounds
could not have been inflicted test titled to
by the defendant. He continued: ''The
statement Of Walter in regard to tie coat
and the pistol is untrue. It is very apparent
that if Mr.. De Young had put his hand in
his hip-pochet he would have drawn his
pistol. He had the advantage in point of
time. Where was the pistol Mr.. Dc Young
is alleged to have had after the first shot was
fired? How could he have used the office
stool as i weapon when his shoulder
shattered2 This testimony is absolutely in
consistent wit the facts existing in this
case. The shooting almost instanta-
neous with the calling Of Mr.. De Young's
name
In closing, Mr.. Campbell said it had been
shown cOnclusively that rhe defendant had
gone to the - Chronicle" Office with the in
tention of shooting De Young, and that he
had done so without provocation. He
hoped the jury would do its duty in the
matter, and though, as Shakespeareshad
said, sin, plated with gold, might be i'm
pervious to the strong lance of justice,
while clothed in rags a pigmy's straw would
pierce it. He hoped the defendant would
be treated just as if he were penniless
prisoner at the bar. Mr.. Campbell closed
at 1915 4. M, md -
JUDGE TooHEY CHARGED THG JURY.
We quote this mastery charge from the
:. San Francisco Report of July 1st, as
follows
Gentlemen of the Jury: Your long and
weary laboro being now about to close,
cannot allow the occasion to pass without
thanking you for all the patient and prompt
attention with which you have discharged
your official duties during period of over
thirty days of your valuable time devoted to
this protracted trial. Exemption from SINH
lar inconvenience for the ensuing year is the
only substantial form in which can express
nv gratitude, and an order of the Court
will be made accordingly in recognition of
your faithful cooperation in the RESPONSE
bilities which attach to our proceedings.
Aud it is especially due from me and our
very able Dis trict Attorney and his learned
associates on the part of the State, as we'll
as to the distinguished counsel representing
the defense, that my sincere appreciation
should be expressed of the courteous and
dignified manner in which they have con-
Quoted this cause from the beginning to It's
suspicious conclusion. Their presence in
Court has rendered my task light one
indeed, the pleasantest and most edifyinG IL
my experience.
With your further attention, gentlemen,
will now, as briefly as it is possible to do SO,
instruct you on the law governing the i'm
portant inquiry submitted for your cOnsci-
eutious determination of the facts, and have
no doubt of your ability to dispose of them
in strict conformity to the requirements of
justice.
The defendant, A. B. Spreckels, is charged
in the information, which has been read to
YOU by the Clerk of the Court, with having,
at this city and county, on the 10th day of
November, 1884, committed the crime of an
assault with intent to commit murder.
1t is specifically alleged that on that day
the defendant did, willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and of his malice afore thought,
with a deadly weapon, make an assault
upon NJ. n. De Young, with the unlawful
intent then aud there to kill and murder
the said N. II. De Young, contrary to the
form, force and effect of the statute and
against the peace and dignity Of the people
of this State.
An assault with intent to commit murder
consists of the attempt, willfully and with
malice aforethought, to kill human being.
And to justify conviction on this charge,
it is an essential and necessary element Of
the crime that the assault should be of such
character that if it had resulted in the
death of NJ. H. De Young, the killing would
have been murder in the first or second
ont, mn Tor