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

person had come while he was ASLEEP
and stolen chickens; that he had gone
OUT to arrest him and he had beaten
him on the head with a club, hurting
him very much. That story had i'm
pressed him very seriously WITH the
danger OF meeting a chicken thief in the
night. Five or six minutes interviewed
between An Leong being shot and the
arrival Of the light; during that time he
said nothing except I die defendant
did not recognize his voice. In firing
the only wish was to disable the thief &c
prevent him from making an attack.
Defendant had previously said 10 LeOng
u have got the pistol, " so that the thief
might hear. That was why he did not
say he had the pistol Immediately be
fore firing.
Cross-examined By Mr.. Rosa: The
man running away was going towards
the west; when he stood facing witness
on the ground he jabbered something in
Chinese. Witnesses impression at that
moment was that the man knew he was
armed, and was considering the feast
bility of making a desperate attack upon
him.
Henry Dimond, father Of the defendant,
gave evidence which, so far as it went,
corroborated that Of his son. When in
the witness-box he was much overcome
by the painful circumstances, and eX-
pressed a wish to make a few remarks.
Those trembling limbs which he ex-
hibited appealed for mercy. The case
had been a severe trial to the family.
Mr. Dole intimated that would be
contrary TO the rules of the Court foI
him to make an appeal at that juncture
J. D. Tucker, recalled by Mr.. Dole,
said that defendants voice at the time
the shot was fired, when calling for
Leong, appeared to be that of one who
was frightened.
Mr. Dole then addressed the jury, say
ing that the law under which the case
was brought was the seventh chapter OF
the Penal Code, on murder and man
slaughter. The section read His Honor
objected to the section being read, as he
deemed it inadyisable to work upon the
feelings of the jury by telling them what
the punishments were. Mr.. Dole said
the law took it for granted that everyone
knew the law. The jury were supposed
to know it, and he hoped they did.
There were three degrees of man
slaughter. This charge was under the
second, and they could find the defend
ant guilty of the second or third degree,
or of assault and battery, or they could
acquit him. The only difference in the
degrees set forth in the statute was the
difference of punishments. They had
no doubt seen the theory of the defense
long before tilis-that this defendant,
who is a man Of most peaceable DISPOSE
ton, particularly toward this Chinaman,
who interested himself educating the
man who was killed, giving him lessons
in English, etc, heard a noise apparent
" as OF thieves at work Hearing the
noise continued, he gets up. They had
previously lost chickens. He is strongly
impressed with the case of Min Chin.
He asks his father for the pistol, and the
latter let's him have it only to be used in
self-defense. He and the deceased go
to the tree where the chickens are and
take ladder. The plan is to go up the
tree and catch the thief 1t is a large
tree with spreading branches. The
night is dark The learned counsel
went on to graphically depict the cir
cumstances as detailed in the evidence.
There was no question as to the de-
PENDANT being mistaken. The ques-
ton at issue was as to whether he
was justified in firing. Was it man
slaughter or misadventure. Consider
ing that he had the full control OF his
ought he to have stopped and
spoken again before firing? He was
momentarily expecting an attack. The
only divergence was on one point be-
tween fuckers evidence and that OF the
defendant. Tucker said he heard him
call Leong just before the report, whereas
defendant said his only word was to the
man to stop. Might he not easily have
forgotten that when his state of mind at
the time was considered? Bearing in
mind, as he did, the case Of Min Chin,
what would any prudent man do under
the circumstances, knowing that some
chicken thieves are brutal men. When
he man turned Immediately after de-
endant fell it was natural for him to sup
pose that the opportunity had been
seized as a fitting one to make the at
ack His previous impression con-
irmed it. Was not he therefore ex-
disable? Would not any man under
hese circumstances have acted as he
lid? Defendant said he did not recog-
lize deceased's voice. Might not the
shock have caused his voice to alter?
Certainly Leong acted in a most extra
ordinary manner in leaving his post of
iutv. When his master ran after him
md called upon him to stop he used