The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-06-15

BIT. McAmster-A particular piece pub
| lished on the 10th day OF November. 1884,
| the Sunday previous 10 this assault.
The Courts there any objection 70 the
/ article going IN
Nj. Campben-We object to the evi.
/ deuce as incompetent. Irrelevant and i'm
/ proper in every way. IL Is simply perfectly
farCical 10 admit any eVlds nee Of the kind.
! and they have already undertaken TO show
that ne party acted there in self defense:
and it is simply taking their own testi-
mOny aud putting the above case IN
perfectly ludicTOus light, the attempt TO
show that this man is insane now after
they have undertaken to show that he
went into that office with q perfectly
| honest purpose. and that when there he
acted entirely and strictly in Self-defense.
Mr.. Taylor-That Is one way Of disposing
of it.
MIR Campbell-That is the objection we
have TO it.
The Court-The objection is overruled.
Mr.. CAMPBELL don't see any authority
for any such thing
Mr.. Highton-This Is headed Angry
Stockholders, Sir Claus as a.
Mr.. Campbell-Une moment: | suppose
that it must be shown that his man-this
crazy man-read the article.
Mr.. HightOn-We propose to show that.
We cannot prove but one thing at time.
propose to show that he has read every
one Of these articles. and will show it.
Mr.. Campbell-My objection is TO the
idea Of setting up defense Of insanity.
Mr.. Highton-Wen, that the Court has
ruled upon, and that ought to be sufficient
The Court Il don't know Of any rule Of
law which prevents the defendant from
advancing those two defenses.
Mr.. CampbelI-Simply because the two
things are palpably inconsistent
Mr.. HIghton-Thati is a matter of argu.
ment
Mr.. McAllister-I don't suppose a crazy
man has right to defend himself at all.
Mr.. Campbell suppose If he was de
Tending himself it is perfectly immaterial
whether he was crazy or not. That is the
ground that put it on, that it is perfectly
immaterial.
Mr.. Highton-This is from the Sunday
Chronicle.
Mr.. Lloyd-f the Court please there is
ANOTHER OBJECTION
To this thing. Certainly they must show
that the defendant read those articles first
and then produce the articles. because you
see yourself il they introduced the article
and afterwards failed to prove that the de
PENDANT read it. then it is before the jury
and the Court can say, Well, you are NOT
to consider that buy it had full effect
Mr.. Tayior-Well we state as a matter
of fact that we will connect ii.
Mr.. L1Oyd-Well. we want the thing
done in the regular order; first, that he
man read the article, and then the article
is admissible. But cert inly before they
do that they cannot read il in evidence.
The order of proof Is very simple. They
must snow IN the first place that he did
read thee articles, and they can show it
at once by himself. lie appears to be a
Ve~y intelligent witness. The foundation
m 1T iirSt be laid.
Hlr. Hi1hlon-It would be a most unu.
sual tnihS for a Court, as well aS for q
counsel. to attempt TO regulate the order
of proof III which the di ;erent parts OF the
testimony on behalf OF the defendant
should DC int. oiu ed. We st te here as n
f CT tina; We viii 10 Low this up 10y showing
that thr u tale Vas az ~ the defendant.
We arc no. II 9 d t. any j,ind OF proof
upon that. duH't know Tia we aIe
obliged ?,rol 1t y himself o. anyb0uy
else. We Will iolow thi up Oy the proper.
p. Onf
The -u,t-.t is comrctcnt to rood the
article now. and follow it up by proof that
the defendant was affected by it.
Mr.. Cdnpbeil-T'he trouble is that we
may nave hundred articles read here,
and these articles may be calculated to
produce impressions on the Jury and then
show that the defendant ever read them.
Now there is the difficulty about it. and
tn lie IS the whole mass of the immateriaI
and improper matter then before tho jury.
Now what Is the objection on the face of
the eIrth to their proving first that tho de-
PENDANT read the articles in question: Now
what can the possible OBJ ectiOn be putting
1t as matter of discretion. Now the Or
binary rule of law about il is this, that the
party must present his proofs in the rsgu-
lar way. and where one thing
to render another fact admissible
in evidence. the fact which is nee
essary TO make this admissible il
that he read that article, or in other words
the foundation has to be laid. OF couree,
the Court has the discretion as to departing
from the regular rule in that respect, but
that is a discretion which | am sure will
be exercised in behalf of uStice and right,
Now. what possible objection is thefel
W hat reason is there for de- artinR from
the regular order of proof in this matterl
1t ain pretended that there is any wit
ness absent which would supply the
link, and why should not counsel
be required TO lay the foundation when it
may be that they may not be able to prove
this thing at all that the defendant ever
read that articles l submit, If your Honor
please. in the exercise OF q proper discre-
ton, that they should be required. first to
8 how that the defendant read the article
that they propose to introduce.
Mr.. HightOn-I don't understand that
there is anything before the Court, except
the counsel. Mr.. Highton then read the
article from the Chronicle. which pur-
ported TO be an exposure OF the operations
Of tbs Hawaiian Commercial Company.