The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-10-12

mercy Of the Court. He must he at
tackled before resorting to the weapon
and was there any show Of an attack ?
None whatever. He was sorry to hear
counsel for the defense bring in a charge
OF the deceased being implicated, as
there was nothing TO support it. He was
asleep, and was walked up by defend
ants father, and asked to render assist
ance 1t was the duty of the defendant
TO avoid using the weapon until he came
in contact with the man. Then there
might be some excuse.
His Honor, in summing up, said that
granddaughter consists in killing, not
with express intention or malicious de-
sign, but without justification or excuse.
Before going into the merits of the case
he felt it his duty to state that it is not
lawful for a man to kill another if he
sees him stealing his property. He had
recently seen a notice in the paper by a
Chinaman to the effect that any person
trespassing upon his stable would be
either arrested or shot. The opinion
seemed to be that a man might use fire
arms upon any small emergency. Man
slaughter was of three degrees. The
degree The jury must assume that the
law provided a different punishment ac-
cording to degree. Some cases APP
preached 80 nearly to murder that it
I'll i
cases were undoubtedly murder of the
first degree, and the punishment was
very severe. To come under the term
second degree the case must be attended
with such circumstances as to warrant
us in taking a more merciful view In
that case there was a medium punish
ment. In the case OF manslaughter Of
the third degree, it might of course be
fairly assumed that the punishment was
lighter. If the jury found that the man
was guilty, they would have to say
whether it was in the second or third
degree. The law also provided for their
returning verdict of assault and bat
terry. The plea was that the homicide
was excusable Ito say justifable would
be going to far. A man was not justi-
fed in killing another unless he had rea-
sonable grounds for believing that the
other designed to destroy his life or
do him some grievous bodily harm
Ii he had sufficient re 'son for believing
that he had such a design it would be
excusable homicide, although it might
afterwards appear that he was mistaken.
What were the circumstances of this
case? Dimond, the defendant, heard
noise among the chickens. He gets up,
asks his father for a revolver, which is
given him upon the understanding that
it is to be used only in self-defense.
He aIludes to the case of the doctors
servant who was attacked by a chicken
thief. He goes out and the deceased is
called to help him. They get ladder
and put it to the tree where the thief is
supposed to be. While raising it Dimond
says he saw a man running away. He
followed him and called upon him to
stop. The man did not stop. Dimond
slipped and fell he Immediately
raised himself up and saw the man
running towards him. When or 10
feet away this man stopped and moved
his hands about. There was no evidence
that this man had any weapon. But he
says he thought the man was armed
because he probably knew that he
[Dimond) was armed, and that he was
hesitating whether or not to make the
attack. That might be. Without call
ing upon him again, or asking what he
was doing, he fires, and the man is
killed 1t is dark, and he fires in the
dark. Surprising all this to be true, it
was for the jury to judge whether Dimond
had reasonable grounds for believing
that his life or person was in imminent
dlnger-whether he had any right to
shoot or not 1t was the duty of a man
before taking the life of another to be
sure that there was no other resource
left to him. Whether All Leong was an
accomplice in the chicken stealing was
not the question. 1t might have been
mistake altogether that anyone was
stealing the chickens. The question
was whether defendant had reasonable
grounds for believing that he was in such
and imminent danger as to
justify him in taking life. Life is pro-
tected by law irrespective of nationality,
and must not be taken unless the person
taking it has reasonable cause for be-
lieving he is about to be attacked. At
the same time a person must not use
firearms carelessly or negligently. His
Honor then directed the jury that they
could find him guilty of manslaugater in
the second or third degree, or of assault
and battery. Tor acquit him, interposed
Mr.. Dolel His Honor assented.
The jury, after a few minutes deliber- |
alton, found verdict of % Not guilty" |
and the defendant was discharged.
The Best Tonic.