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

w ''J "S"iH 90 hS VIM Ala u
place like Honolulu, anyone could
find out the reputation Of Miss Horn
in three days. If the gossips cannot
find out any evil against person
they will invent it. Patten knew he
was doing wrong to keep up this
intimacy after she was married. All
the threats that were made were
passed round at the social board
from one TO another. and Bridges
heard it. Government, law, the
public and morality have some
rights. Perhaps with only one shot
he would not have been amcnable to
the law. But he fired two shots.
II was the second shot that killed,
beyond reasonable doubt. 1t it had
been the first shot l would not have
prosecuted, but the fact of firing a
second time showed deliberate in
tent. 1t will be n dark and sad day
for this country if people were to
resort to deeds Of violence for their
self-protection. Gentlemen, have
laid my theory of the case before
you. l thank you for your patience,
and leave this case for serious consi-
deration in your hands.
CHARGE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
Chief Justice Judd said: On the
18th of November a gentleman
named Patten came to his death by
a pistol shot. 1t was near five
O'Clock in the afternoon, while the
sun was still shining, at the close of
ordinary business hours. 1t has
been proved clearly to you that that
would not have occurred, and Patten
not robbed of his life-sent without
a word of warning TO his account-if
a pistol had not been carried. 1t is
not the custom in this community to
carry deadly weapons. SO long as
| have seat on this bench, both
you and 1 will do all we possibly
can to prevent the carrying of fire.
arms. 1t was something to say very
favorable to this little city, which
most people suppose to be a com.
munity of barbarians, that during q
period OF sixty or seventy years no
human life has been taken by
violence. The character of your
verdict will do much to decide
whether this state OF. things shall
continue or not. 1t is admitted that
Bridges fired the pistol that killed
Patten. 1t may be q matter of sur
prise to you why he was not pre-
sented on charge Of murder. (IIis
Honor here read the law, defining
murder to be the taking of human
life with malice aforethought, with
out authority, justification or exten-
uation by law, and manslaughter
killing without malice aforethought,
illegally, the only difference being
in the matter of malice afore-
thought The Government must
have shown that Bridges killed
Patten with malice aforethought be-
fore it could convict him of murder.
The burden of proof to the contrary
does not rest upon the defendant,
but the Government must prove
malice beyond reasonable doubt
to make out case of murder. BY
reasonable doubt is meant one for
which reason can be given, and
not an imaginary doubt, OF vague
conjecture, or mere possible doubt.
His Honor then defined the degrees
of manslaughter, said it was not for
the jury to weigh consequences or
apportion punishment in this case, as
that responsibility rested with the
Court. He cited examples of what
constituted manslaughter before the
law, such as killing by the careless
discharge of firearms, a workman
letting stones fall from building,
etc., but those were not the offence
in the highest degree. 1t was not
for the jury to weigh degrees in
their minds, however, only to agree
to the facts in the case and be guided
by no other rule. The law in re-
ference to self-defence was an old
fashioned one, as administered by