The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-06-09

address, or observation to Mr.. lie Young
was respectful and cour eous, ana repeated
before Mr.. De Young turned round.
Third-We rely upon this proposition
mat the direction and course OF the shot,
ls indicated By the wounds. and in view OF
the distance between Michel II de Dung
and the defendant. scarcely offered q pre-
sumption Of serious intention. certainly
not Of q deliberate and preconce!v Oh inten-
ton upon tae part OF The defer dant, 70
take lie.
And then We Inform you that We shau
prove that the dsfeEdsnt folio ed Mi
cheI IL. de iocrg iCto that office for
peaceful sxpos;ulat.on Upon the cours> Of
the ChTo1fcIs toward his father and h,
fathers family, srd that he carried that
purpose out so long as ne could DO so with
safety 20 himself AID % TIE exercise Of
common prudence.
Now under the amelio.ation OF the law.
which permits defendant 10 Ice q witness
on his own behalf. the arc eut Inference of
intent from mAu's set. is COW modified
TO this extent: that defendant may now
testify directly 20 hts own inteution; al
though. II be fail 10 90 go. no inference
against him on that ground could be in
duIEed. Gut there are
oTHER AND iSFKRIoR oFtENsEs
Included ia charge OF assault to murder.
. ~h.ch the Law briefly defines; Tue first
seing assault ~ilk-A deadly weapon. AT
. common "a ~. Assault and battery. which
7 conPtltuted oue OceEse allo q simple
assault, we're iGc'ucec In ass alt with
an icteEt 10 co n n, n uTdeT. here, where
oAtt.ry aEd As-A AZ are dtstInCt and sepa-
. rate from each other. probably Coin are in
c!uded il the informant %.
Now ] have msptioHed those inferior
graCeS OF crlire smoraCed IN the infOrma
ton. not as implying ,bat the defendant
has committed any 81 them, tor n c expect
totA ia oltNh the right "a a verdict of not
guSSy Of any ere 0: thrse C:'e:,-cs. bat 70
supply iEto:nat.ou 1hirh. sstLoGGh il en-
teTe into TIE dc euse, IL seems 40 me the
prosecution itself ought to hsve -commu
nica:ec. ne N slIUn OF
REASONABLE DOUBT
In q criminal case was then argued as
length. Mr.. Lloyd thereupon protested
against counsel arguing points of law to
the jury.
Mr.. Taylor-Mr. Campbell objects to our
arguing the facts and Mr.. Lloydlto our ar
guing the law. and that would reduce US
to our arguing both, presume.
The Court-Let the quotations be az
brief as possible.
Mr.. Highton-They have been brief. I
have not stopped to read authorities and
/ the only onus that rests upon them is that
which results from the chronic Interrupt.
ton of the other side.
The Court will excuse the counsel for
their interruption with regard to the def
milton OF reasonable doubt.
Mr.. Highton-I do not think 1t has ever
been improved upon.
The Court never saw a man that un.
derstood it. 1t may do very well for
Boston jury. but it seems very difficult
for jurors to understand il here.
Mr.. Highton-The definition Of reason,
able doubt. Isuppose may proeesd with
reading it!
The Court We'll be very short.
Mr.. iRhton-ReaSOnabl doubt Is thai
state OF mind which. after entire compari-
son and consideration of all the evidence.
leaves the minds OF the jurors in that con-
dition that they cannot say they feel an
abiding conviction of a moral certainty OF
the truth of the charge. Authorities were
cited in support of this definition.
Counsel hen took up
TUE SUBJECT OF INSANITY.
1t had devolved upon the Supreme
Cuort of this State. he said, to bring the
question pf insanity out OF the chaotic
state to which it had fallen. The defense
claims that there is no presumption # in
sanity in any particular form. 1t claims
only the general principles which the law
lays down. He drew a comparison be.
tween irresistible impulse of the intellect
and moral inclination 10 commit crime,
which he characterized as moral insanity
or criminal DBL putty. and continuing, said:
"Of course the true rule for pro ecutIOnS is
that which L may perhaps venture to call
passionless inquiry. calm, deliberate, judi
clal lnVeStlgatlOn, unmlNed with any de-
sire tor personal revenge or ascendency,
and dnperverted by any gratuitOus and
improper illusions to the wealth or intiu-
ence of the pro ecuting witness, himself in
this case not placed upon the stand, and
the defendant or those with whom he is
related or connected. If influence were
to be considered here upon the facts which
this defendant will be enabled TO prove. /
abnuId perhaps TX him to cnmnarA the
proprietor OF q powerful journal with a
young man of good life and clara cter, but
with his destiny to carve out amongst the
rough conflicts which the world VIII sup
ply him in the future-and see what pre-
Bumptlons would naturally arise from that
consideration. But all such questions, no
matter how suggestive, no matter where
they originate, no matter how frequently
they may be inter- oscd through the deX-
terity of counsel have no suitable place In
an American Court of Justice governed
by law and facts. and not By demigogism
OF ohicanery. -
THE DEFENSE.
Now I will proceed with what, but
for little analysis and thought, would
appear to be the most definite part of the
defense, but these definite parts Of the de-
tense, as they are often termed, although
resting more completely upon specific
the other parts of the defense, consisting
of presumptions with which they are per
sonally related and connected.
g have already said that we shall neg
ative-thRt we shall meet, answer and,
trust, overcome-whateVer case there may
be for the prosecution; but hey ond this we
shall introduce testimony under the plea
of not guilty, as 1t has been already de-
fined under my preceding observation,
tending to establish two separate lines Of
affirmative defense = namely: First,
I mention them in that order
for the mere convenience Of presentation
and not as giving to either of these de.
fenses any particular predominance over
with, L trust, judicial frRnkness of the fact
that on these lines of defense the burden
Of proof to the extent OF esta bltshing them
by mere preponderHnce OF evidence, and
not beyond q reasonable doubt, is upon the
defendant, excepting so far as these de-
lenses or any part Of them arise out Of
the case already made for the State. The
prosecution is here bound to prove guilty
intent, but there can be no guilty intent in
an insane mind, whether temporarily or
permanently insane. The very fact. il IL
should be established in any manner under
the rules of law which will besGdminis-
tered here strictly and accurately by his
Honor upon the bench, that at the par
ticular moment of this shooting the de-
PENDANT here had what the law treats or
considers when the facts prove it as an
insane mind within definition to which
shall almost Immediately call your
attention, would entltle him to an
acquittal Now. undoubtedly wher
ever a defendant relies upon two lines of
defense. such as | have ventured to do
scribe, it is claimed invariably on the part
OF the State that there is some degree Of in
consistency between them. In this case
we shall probably md that there is not
necessarily any Inconsistency between
these two lines Of defense. But, as l have
already stated, we are not here presenting
any theory or hypothesis except that of not
guilty, and we are simply exercising our
right given to Us by law, and which will
be fully conceded to us by the Court. of in
Producing all matters OF defense which we
have You must remember, gentlemen,
that the testimony on our side has not yet
been delivered. You have listened only
to one side OF this case. We can anticipate
the direction of the evidence which we
shall be enabled to introduce, but we
cannot tell with precision what il
will absolutely be. At this timS
Nc can only state what We under
stand il will tend to prove. and IL is the
defendants right. and it is our duty az hia
counsel to put in all the testimony we
have, and the law. which is sovereign over
as all, provides that we can and shall In.
troduce evidence on every position Hhieh
the facts tend TO establish and il insanity
and self-defense should conflict which in
this case. as l have already intimated,
they may not, the defendant is not even
TO be prejudiced by that fact if at the
time Of the act charged in this informa-
ton he was either insane or acting in self.
defense. In either OF these views he Is
untitled TO an Rcnuittal. and thu dafand ne