The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1885-01-21

got it, the $1,000 The intent of Patteu was I'M
doubtedly to buy of the letters, two OF them were
numerous, showing that he was married man. l
believe nothing but that Bridges WIS incollusion
with his father-in-law. Patten knowing what the
| defendent was made of did not deem him worth
the killing he attacked him only with a stick.
Bridges sets himself up as the aveneer Of his wifes
honor. When man finds such letter as be did
IN his wife trunk and goes smoothly On and con-
tlnues to keep that woman as the guardian Of his
children, such man lacks the principle that should
guide man Of honor. If on the SPUR Of the mo
ment, on finding that letter he had shot Pattsn,
then there might have been something manly about
his actions But no, he goes hagRling about the
price Of his wifes body.
You must consider whether the defendant be
lisTed his life in danger, and you must iudOe bv
his actions. When Patten, unfortunately rushed
at him and struck two blows, Bridges shoots not
conented he shoots again, and that the fatal shot
Inc testimony of DR.. Emerson, shows the error Of
the defence in believing that she first shot was
fatal There is always something prOvidential
connected with such cases when the mouth Of the
victim is closed and say that too much stress
cannot be placed upon the saying of that old man
where he states he told Patten he wanted him 10
settle that little affair." When the family coun-
ell was held at which was present Mrs. Horn, Mrs
Sexton, Mrs Bridges and God knows, who else
the fate of the victim settled after the fashion
OF these secret Chinese tribunals that We hear Of
if Patten did not come up then he would be put
down.
The counsel for defence has alluded to the chill
dren of the prisoner; If it were plain and evident
10 me that Bridges avoided or tried avoid the kill
ing OF this man would not willingly have pro-
secuted him. But he fired two shots. II was the
second shot that killed. beyond reasonable doubt
IL had been the first shot might not have pro-
secuted, but the fact of firing scond time showed
deliberate intent. 1t will be dark and sad dav
for this country when people resort to deeds OF
N nr
injuries You are to consider two questions did the
prisoner repel the attack on himself with undue
yiolenee and 2nd were the movements of defendant
such to cause a belief that he was afraid of his
life. Gentlemen, have laid my theory of the case
before you for the serious consideration which /
know 1t viii receive at your hands.
THE JUDGES CHARGE
Chief Justice Judd said: On the 18th of No
vember man named Pstten came to his death
by a pistol shot. II was near five O'Clock in
the afternoon, while the sun was still shining. al
the close of ordinary business hours. II has been
proved clearly to you that that would not have
occurred, and Patten not robbed of his Efe-sent
without word Of warning to his account--ifa
pistol had not been carried. 1t is not the habit
IN this community to carry deadly weapons. So
long as have seat this bench, or have any in
tuence both you and will do all we possibly can to
discourage the carrying of firearms. 1t was some-
thing TO say, very favorable to this little city which
most people suppose to be community of barbara
ans, that during period of sixty or seventy years
no human life has been taken by violence within the
commercial limits of the town. The character of
your verdict will do much to decide whether this
state OF things shall continue or not 1t is admit
ted that Bridges fired the shot that killed Patten
1t may be matter of surprise to you why he was
not presented on charge of murder
(His Honor here read the law, defining murder
to be taking of human life with malice afore-
thought, without authority. Justification or ex-
tenuatlon OF law, and manslaughter killing with
out malice aforethought, illegally, the only differ
ence being IN the matter of malice aforethou0ht)
Iha(
killed Patten with malice aforethOught before IL
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 a
reasonable doubt to make out case of murder
By reasonable doubt is meant for which reason
can be given, and not an imaginary doubt, or
vague conjecture, or mere possible doubt. His
honor then defined reasonable doubt"
His honor then defined the degrees of manslau0h-
ter, said 1t was not for the jury to weigh conse-
quences or apportiOn punishment in this case, as
that responsibility rested with the Court. He CT
ted examples of what constituted manslaughter
before the law, such as killing by the careless dis
charge of firearms, workman letting stones fall
from buildinge ETC., but those were not offensesin
the highest degree 1t was not for the jury to weigh
degrees IN their minds, however, only to agree to
the facts in the and be guided by no other rule
The law in reference to self defense was an old
fashioned one, as administered in this countryand
even in those places where homicides were fire.
quent he was not aware that the Judges set up
the law OF the borders. The law binding us
might not seem chivalrous, but it was the best.
the SAFEST the most conducive to morality, safety
and protection to human life. Under the law to
make homicide exeusable the provocative injury
must be actual. man had no right to 90 armed
by fear OF imaginary threats, They must not re-
fuse to convict because they found the assault
upon the defendant was premeditated as such a
fact did not prove self-defense. man must re-
treat far as he safely can from party by whom
he is assaulted must fly as far as he can, and
may only attack his assailant when hsmmed in, as
n in. int ha
may defend his life By extraordinary measures
even rat will fight when oOrnered His duty was to
try to escape was the law of this country-and
man had no right TO violence if he had chance
to escape. IL was their duty to consider whether in
this case any injury would have been inflicted upon
the defendant which might not have been redressed
by our friend, the Police Magistrate. If there was
no extreme danger our laws would have afforded
all necessary protection TO defendant. What was
the duty of Bridges under these circumstances?
man may not say. 81 believe my life is in danger"
in excuse for homicide If that was an extenua-
ton there would be no occasion for Jury. Would
reasonable man in Bridges situation believe his
life was in danger, or that he was in danger of
severe bodily injury?
His Honor did not agree with the Attorney
General that defendant would have been justified
in firing one shot The law did not Justify him
in using any more violence than was necessary in
repeiling the assault. Itw not case of neees-
sity. man was not obliged to take life until all
other means were exhausted. / am asked to
charge you on behalf of defendant that if he had
been IN bodily fear of his life he justified in fir
ing. decline to do so. The Jury should decide
what effect the threats against defendant had up
on him by his actions subsequently to being
threatened. They need not trouble themselves
about the unfortunate relations said to exist be-
| tween the deceased and Bridges. Nor were they
to weigh IN their minds which of the two men was
the more valuable to society. They might also
leave out OF the question whether, in killing the
deceased the defendant was defending the honor
of his family. They had only to consider the
events that occurred at FIVE minutes after five on
the fatal evening. How was defendant struck
Did he have an opportunity of seeing what wea-
pom was in his assailant's hand? That it was a
weapon from which any man was in peril of his
lifes They must consider whether defendant had
any means of escape. If Bridges had any means
OF escape he should have awaited himself of it.
Because a man is nervous timid, il does
not Justify him in using a weapon. If that
was Justification many of Us would be in danger
from our nervous friends. He could not rule as
asked by counsel that If Bridges had been salts
fed that threats were made on his life, they
would acquit him. Mere threats OF bodily harm
will not justify violence nor when circumstances
show that the threats were TO be carried out. He
would rule. as requested, that where an act had
been done TO show that the threats were to be
carried out there justification of violence. He
was asked to rule that if defendant was in a
nervous exciteable condition when assailed,
they could not find him guilty of a lower degree
than that charged. That was not the law. As 10
self-defense he had already stated that the Crown
was bound to prove that the act was not done in
defendant must be the one for which they could
give a reason, such as they would act upon in all
affairs of life. His Honor complmented the Jury
for their attention, and congratulated himself
that though they we're of different nationalities,
and various degrees of education they were men
whom he was satisfied would do simple Justice to
their fellow. being. Their duty was not one of
sympathy to the father of family, but to them
selves as members of the community. He be.
lieved their verdict would be one that would sa-
tisfy their own consciences and be according TO
law.
Mr.. Castle noted exceptions to the charge of JUS
tice Judd.
AT 955 the Jury retired, and after returning once
10 obtain further instructions, brought in verdict
at lilo, of guilty of manslaughter in the second
degree, three dissenting.
Mr.. Castle noted an exception to the verdict.
The prisoner was then removed by Marshal Soper
and the crowd dispersed quietly.
THE SENTENCE
On the afternoon of the 10TH inst, sentence was
rendered by Judge Judd, who stated in substance
that considering all the circumstances and the
united appeal of the Attorney General with that
of his counsel be tempered justice with mercy and
sentenced the prisoner to five years irnuri comment