The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-06-15
NM frnr LA rr,,dr rrho -. thsNnl

count from anybody who was theFe7 \
] was not detailed 10 do that; | did not
Dwell after you went into the CbTou-
fcje Office when you first went there who
did you see therel Al noticed nobody
in particular. l merely went inside and
came out again.
Curiosity.
Q.-And your curiosity did not inpel
you to make any inquiry of anybody az
that time in relation TO it'll A.-There was
somebody else detailed on that business
inside the ONCE and was detailed outside
the Office. l was detailed by the city
editor 10 60 there, gather the expressions
Of opinion Of the people who were on the
outside Of the office, TO find out If could
if there were anybody around who had
seen the shooting or knew anything Of il.
Q.-Who besides yourself was detailed
therel A number OF the staff. Sew
eral of the Office reporters.
Q.-Then you were sent to go to the
ofice but you were to make your inquiries
outside of the office; is that itl Al was
not restricted from going into the office. I
was merely told to make my inquiries
and connne my work TO the outside Of the
office, which did.
Q.-Who did you see when you went
back TO the editorial rooms of the EXAM
INERl Al reported TO the, city editor,
MIR. Ward.
DID 3fr. Ward send you back 10 the
ChTonicte offices A.-He did not. l had
made an engagement at that time with
Fred II. Hackett reporter On the ChroR-
icle, to take dinner with him.
Q.-Then You did not get this infOrma-
tiCn It all from Mr.. Cameron as q detailed
reporter. but you did IL merely meet
ing him in the street casually A.
1t is always the duty Of the reporter 10 get
ali the information he can. l was on duty
supposed TO be. l was told to report back
To the office.
O.-You had then gone to see Mr.. Hack
EFT and on that occasion you got this in
10. nation from Mr.. &. meron' Al did.
On my journey TO the Chronicle office
To meet Mr. HacketU l met Mr.. Cameron
and got his statement, as l stated before.
RE-EXAMISATIoN OF THE WITNESS.
Mr.. McAllister-Mr. Cameron was not
running when you met him! Al be-
Iieve not. lie did not tell me that he was
going for a doctor that time. Our meeting
was en- irely accidental
MIR, McAllister-Now, we do not con
slider it ia competent, but we are perfectly
willing if the other side wish it. to have
the statement that Mr.. Diss published
the next day in tbs EXAMINER put in evi
dence if thsy desire it. Have you any OBJ
lection 10 IT,
MIR. Campbell objected to it. and it
has been ruled out, and we propose in re-
buttal TO present all the facts in relation to
that matter.
w ,. Waller tI'eCaI!eH.
w J. Walter was recalled and Mr.. Nc
Aliister said-Upon this matter OF the res
0ests In the first place. L want your
Honor to understand the precise facts that
we pro- ose to show by Mr.. Walter. We
want to show by Mr.. " alter that he parted
with Mr.. Spreckels at the nor Invest cor
ner of Bush and kearny streets on this
occasion. and that MIR. Spreck els left him
and came rig hit over to tho CElTu ttCte office
and that he proceeded noTuhWard on
the west side of KoarnJ street TO
take the Calf rnia-Street ga to come
home, and that he knew at the time that
Mr.. opreckeis left him that NJ. SpreckelS
fr,f l1f jRia mr.
he at that time substantially asked Mr.
Spreckels what his object was III going TO
the ChroHi Office, and MIR. SpreckelB
made reply. which conversation we seek
now to introduce; that this occurred
within two minutes or the shooting; that
is TO say this conversation Wit n occurred
between Mr.. Walter and M. Srreckels as
they parted. on the north ST corner or
hcarny and Bush streets, 90 ur, ed within
about two minutes previous O the shoot
lag, and we say that 1t was 20 close in
point of time to the actual transaction that
1t constitutes part OF the res 0eS5R.
Counsel then cited many authorities suS-
tanning his position.l Now, W. say, your
Honor that it would be very forced con
clusion to suppose that, when Mr.. Walter
asked him what arc you gong to the
Chronicle office for. that he should
m ,nuiactuFe testimony in has own behalf;
that he " Ould not then truly express to
mis- friend his real intent. W.. therefore.
submit that it is admissible a. part OF tho
IS geStG, and Mr.. HightOn wi reinforce
these views.
argument of Mr.. NIcAllister BY a few OBJ.
s-rvatIons. As understand his proposed
testimony, it is Admissible upon three
grounds, iirst, because II tends 10 charao-
Ierize the conduct of the defendant,
ar or immediAt ly preceding the time OF
the aIIeged sno0IlnB; secono, because II
refers to the question OF manner or mode
in which tho act was done; and third, be-
cause in legal contemplation it is part of
the conversation itself. - OF course, the
prosecution here, in order to maintain the
allegations of the information. are COM
PEELED to show that this act of shooting
was done with elaboration and pr
meditation. Now, the reference to the
quality Of the conversation, occurring as
it did, some hing like two minutes before
the shooting, whether it was simply con-
cocted or simulated or not, is a question
of fact upon which the jury itself must be
called upon to pass. 1t is perfectly certain
here, that the manner. the appearance and
the conduct of the defendant at and i'm
mediRtely preceding this transaction, are
matters Of legitimate investigation, and
upon that independent point the testi-
mony would be admissible show
ing the absence of reconciliation
and deliberation, Citing seventh Adol-
plus and Ellis, 324, 325; also Stevens Di-
gest of the Law of Evidence, page l53.
particularly the 9TH and 18th sections; also
page OF Stevens on Evidence, Article
Will
Mr.. CampbelI-Of course the proposition
here is 10 introduce q conversation of the
defendant at the bar and the witness as
they claim, almost Immediately preceding
the shooting of Mr.. De Young and Wo
claim that that is part of the resgestoe In
dicating the purpose that defendant had
In going TO the Chronicle office. 1t is
simply an event which took place ante
rior to the actual shooting. 1t is simply
conversation in the absence OF the in
jured party. l will read TO your Hon r
the case of the State of Maryland vs..
Ridgway. Harris & MoHenTy reports.
California az
page S..
Is perfectly obvious that this evidence is
admissible under our other defense. TO
show the condition of his mind at the time
OF this transaction. That has not been sug-
gested before, but it is perfectly obvious.
Mr.; Lloyd-n it is put on that ground it
may be admissible.
Mr.. CampbeH-n it is offered on the
ground of insanity we have no objection.
Mr.. MoAllister-It is a double barreled
affair. We offer it on both grounds.
Mr.. CampbelI-Well, we shall ask the
Court at the proper time to instruct the
jury that they are not to take that into con
sideratiOn. except that OF insanity.
Mr.. MoAllister-Well we shall ask the
Court TO give it.
The Court-You need not go into that
now.
said you noticed the appearance Of the
effect of Mr.. De Young upon Mr.. Spreckels
in front Of the Elite saloon Al did,
sir.
AT the time that you arted from Mr.
Spreckels had you any knowledge that he
was go nR to the Chronicle office! Al
had no positive knowledge from him, but
could see that he was going there. The
only remark that passed between US in that
regard, was | turned to MIN and said
Are you going TO make a d-n fol Of
yourself Z" and he answered me emphati.
cally to the effect that he was not.
Q.-Answer what he said Ale said
l have no such intention
Q.-Just state exactly what you said
Al said: Dolph. are you going to
make - fool OF yyurself" and he said
Il have no such intention"
Q.-How long, Mr.. Walter. was it after
you left Mr.. Spreckels before you heard
the shooting. IL you heard it at all A
Well, don think it was more than three
quarters OF minute. perhaps, or minute.