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


floor till the shooting was over. J. II.
Renck saw the lady at the counter, heard
the shooting, jumped on to the counter
and heard Emerson shooting and saw him
with smoking pistol in his hand. Henry
Z. B. BlOte contradicted his testimony
that he had given in the Police Court and
set forth that his memory improved with
age. He did not see Spreckels till both
shots had been fired and De Young had
tumbIed over a stool. E. K. Chapman
heard a shot, could not realize what it
was, and saw nothing till the whole affair
was over. J. G. Chesley thought the first
shot was from bombs and frecrackers,
the result of electioneering rejoicing. but
he afterwards rushed out to seize Spreck-
els.
BROKEN BRoKAw.
Edward A. Brokaw, witness for the
prosecution (who is well known in Homo
lulu had sold hay to SpreckeIs & Co.
some years ago, and had travelled up and
down in the steamers with them. Spreck-
els was ten or twelve feet behind De
Young going into the office, but the door
had not closed, yet Spreckels had to open
the door to get in. He followed Spreck-
els, and left when the crowd came in. He
could not recollect what business he en-
gag since giving up the hay business in
1876, or what wages he earned running
threshing machine, though he afterwards
stated it was four dollars day. He then
E, Of ut
SIG 90 week, and subsequently went to
Monterey, where he did nothing for
month He next worked on a ranch at
Gilroy, whence he was discharged after
six months on account of a horse trade.
He then went to Sacramento, next drove
a hay wagon in San Francisco, worked on
a plantation at Maui for W. H. Bailey, went
to Honolulu, thence to Hawaii, wheze he
was building a railroad, returned to San
Francisco, where he engaged in the hay
business for four months. and then made
a fresh start for Honol ulu. There he
worked IN the dairy business for II time,
then drove teams for Mr.. Graham. He
then made several trips between the two
ports dealing in stock. He conversed with
Mr.. Douglas, the port Captain of the
Spreekels' line of steamers, con-
corning the case. He had ber-
rowed about $3.50 from a man 10y the
name of Carnage; did net know he was a
detective. He had never been to AdOlph
Spreckels about the case, but had seen
him once. He once went to John Spreck-
els to get his feelings towards witness. be-
cause he had testified against him. He
had previously not testified in the case.
Did not know that the money lent him by
came from De Young; had known
Carnage good many years. Did not
know that he WAS employed in the ease,
yet Carnage told him that he was en-
ployed 10y De Young. Had CONVERSE
ton with Mr. Wilson, engineer of the !
Mariposa, about the case. Did not say
anything about man skipping and $500.
Went to the office with draft for $25,
which was paid by one of the clerks. Was
talking to John D., and told him he |
would like to see Adolph. Saw Adolph |
and told him what he knew, but did not |
care to testify in the case at all.
This closed the case for the prosecution, !
and continuance was ordered till the |
day. when Hall McAlister drew |
the attentio of the Court to the fact that |
the prosecuting witness,
NJ h. DE YOUNG, WAS NOT CALLED.
The attorney for the defense, Hall Nc
Allister, quoted cases in support of the
fact that the absence of the principal
prosecuting witness threw upon the de-
fsndant the burden of proving his inno-
cence. That the burden of proving rested
upon the prosecution. The whole trans
action should be shown whether to estab-
Iish guilt or innocence. Mr.. Highton
quoted further cases in support of this
view. Mr.. Campbell, for the prosecution,
cited cases on his side against calling De
Young as a witness, and suggested that
this should be done by the defense. The
Court took the question under study until
Friday, May 29th, when
THE COURT DECIDED
AS follows; 81 am convinced that it is IN
the discretion of the counsel for the peo-
pie to make him their witness or not to
do so, as they may elect. 1t is sufficient,
otherwise, that the witness be present in
Court so that the defense may have his
evidence if required. This is we'll settled
in the English authorities, and is not at
all at variance with the fixed doctrines Of
our Courts in this country. 1t is the
province of the prosecuting officer, and
not of the Court, to determine who shall
be examined as witnesses on the part of
the State. The defendants counsel will
therefore proceed, if they are ready"
Mr.. Taylor noted an exception to the
ruling.
THE REASON WHY.
In the absence of Hall McAllister,
through sickness, Mr.. Highton expressed
his willingness and preference to continue
the case for the defense. TIE ADVERTISER
is in position to give the leading argu-
ment of counsel in full, which appears in
strong contrast to the brief and weak
opening address of counsel for the prose
cution, whose refusal to place their Prln-
cipal witness on the stand, fearing Sc
we're cross-examination and the elieitipg of
facts, prior to the shooting, which would
tend materially to damage their cause in