The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1885-10-13
Supreme Court of tho Hawaiian Islands.
In Banco. July Term, 1885.
The KING VS.. H. A. BRIDGES

Supreme Court of tho Hawaiian Islands,
In BancO. July Term. 1885.
The KING VS.. H. A. BRIDGES.
Judd e. J., MeCHlly aud Preston ~.
The defendant, Hiram A. Bridges, was in
dicted at the last January term Of this Court
for manslaughter in the first degree, by feloni-
ously killing one Leonard r. Patten, on the
18th day of November, 1881, and was con-
victed Of manslaughter in the second degree.
The Chief Justice presided at the trial.
1t appears from the evidence that at about
5 o'clock p. M, on the day in question the de-
PENDANT was walking along Fort street, in this
lRity, when Patten (the deceased) left some
persons with whom he was talking outside
Warehouses; store, and went into the store,
| from which he returned carrying stick in his
hand, described by witnesses to be about
three feet long) and crossed over TO the oppo-
site side of the street, and attacked the de-
| PENDANT, striking him several times about the
head with tie stick. The stick, which was of
the kind used as roller for piece goods. was
broken by the force of the blows. The de-
PENDANT, who had 4 loaded revolver concealed
about him, drew it and fired twice at the de
ceased, the second shot inhictiDg a mort Al
NOullQ. lue utCtdbtu WAS CdIElGu lulO
gist's store near by, and expired within few
minutes.
Evidence was given of improper relations
having existed for some time, between the de-
| ceased and the defendants wife, previous 10
her marriage with the defendant, which took
place in the July preceding: And that the
deceased had on several occasions, been heard
to say that he would shoot the defendants
wife, and that they, (the defendant and his
wife) should not leave the beach alive. These
threats were not made in the hearing or pres
ence of the defendant, but were communicated
10 him, previous 10 the shooting.
The defendant testified "The. first threat was
to the effect that we should not leave the
beach alive. My wife told me this; she also
told me that Mrs. Horn, Cher mother) had
told her that Patten had said he did not care
for bis life, but neither one of us should leave
the country alive. These are the threats he
made against me- These threats were brought
home to me before the 18th November. From
what heard of these threats, | thought that
Patten would shoot me on the first opportunity.
On Monday, the 10th, l was induced to carry
my pistol in my pocket, believing he would
kill me-" Speaking of what occurred on the
18th, the defendant says: "When heard the
five o'clock whistle blow, l walked up Fort
street, on Ehler's side towards home. When
opposite to Williams store, without any warn
ing, received blow on the left side of the
face and heard the words-(an opprobrious
epithet) 4 have got you now:' at the same in
slant l received another blow just below tue
temple. In dazed condition l started to run,
when some one came up behind me and caught
hold of my shoulder. | turned around and
recognized Patten, his face white and his teeth
I ra1 90 and tubila
drawing it he struck me again, saying, oh you
may shoot at the same time raising the stick;
while it was descending pulled the trigger.
In my excitemenN may have pulled it twice.
felt him leave go of me and l ran up Fort
street."
There is slight discrepancy in the evidence
of the various witnesses who saw the shoot
ing, g. F. Noble, J. Williams, W. NJ. Gibson,
F. Il. Hayselden, H. Armitage, E. W. Jordon,
]. NJ Starkey, j. s. Giusburgh and W. Evans
as to the position of the parties at the time
the shots were fired, and as to whether the
first shot was fred before blow was struck
by the deceased, but the great preponderance
Of the evidence would seem to show that sew
eral blows were struck before the first shot
was fired, and that when the second shot was
fired, the parties had separated very little
way, and the stick was broken.
Counsel for the defendant requested the pre-
siding Judge to instruct the jury:
LIST, That if the defendant heard and believed
that Patten made threats against his life, or Of
severe bodily harm, be was justified in de-
Tending himself against the execution of such
threats:
End. That if the jury believe from the evil
dence that if Patten did make threats Of severe
bodily harm or of death against Bridges, that
Bridges had reasonable ground to believe and
did believe that such threats had been made,
he was justified in using extreme measures for
his self-defence, provided an attack was made
on him by Patten.
3rd. That if the jury believed from the evil
dence that at the time of the Staying, some act
was being done by Patten, from which the de-
fendent might reasonably infer that said Pat
ten was about TO cary out his previous threats
made against defendants life, or person, he
was justified in killing him, and the defendant
must be acquitted.
4th. If the jury believe from the evidence
that the killing of Patten was not excusable,
and find that the defendant, at the time, was
in peculiarly nervous and excitoble condi-
ton, they may return verdict for lower de-
gree than that charged"
Which instructions were refused, but the
instruction No 3, was given, modified by the
Court adding thereto the words: "But it must
have been shown that Patten attacked him
with lethal weapon"
The defendant by bis counsel excepted to
said refusal to charge, and 10 said charge as
modified.
The Court in its charge to the jury said:
'Tf you find that there is evidence 10 show
that this homicide wac premeditated by Bridges
you cannothe help finding him guilty as charged"
"a man must retreat, as far as he can safely,
to avoid his assailant, and must fee as far az
be can, and he may only kill bis assailant
when escape is no longer possible, as when he
is penned in by wall or q ditch. II is right
for man to defend bis life, but be must make
an honest attempt TO get away, and he has no
right TO use fatal violence if be can escape"
IA man may not say, Il believed my life was
in DANGER in excuse for homicide. II is
whether you gentlemen believe that man Of
ordinary GOODNESS was in imminent danger Of
his life, or Of severe bodily injury, with no
chance Of escape. Would reasonable man
have believed his life in danger"
ut is not a case Of necessity, If any other
means Of preserving life remains. am asked
to charge you gentlemen, on behalf OF the de-
fendant, that if he bad heard that Mr.. Patten
had made such threats as TO put him IN fear
for his life, he was justified in defending him
self in the manner be did. decline TO 60 So
as no threats will justify the taking Of human
life unless there be an attempt TO execute
them
"You must take into consideration every
part Of the testimony, as to what occurred the
afternoon Of the 18th Of November, in what
manner the defendant acted, how soon he
turned round, and whether be could see what
sort Of weapon was used by Patten; was i a
sort Of weapon likely to pat him in fear Of his
lifeg The stick has been shown and testified
TO. You see it was soft, the grain was not
tough. II Mr.. Bridges had an opportunity Of
getting away, he should have avaiIed himself
Of it, rather than killed Patten."
i cannot rule as asked by the counsel for
the deteucs, that IL Bridges was satisfied that
threats had been made agains. his life that you
should acquit him. Mere threats Of bodily
harm do not justify violence"
II an also asked u ru1e that If the defend-