Daily Honolulu press. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1886, 1886-02-02

stopped he went to the Merchants
Exchange to look for a friend-one
of the crew of the Lizzie Iredale he
went away at a quarter to eleven.
His Honor commented on the evil
dence as to Hastie being at the
Merchants Exchange Saloon a little
before IL, leaving to go to see
Walker and being at the Royal
Saloon little after IL. 1t was
clear that Peterson and Walker had
left the Royal together. According
to Peterson, Walker went to the Post
Office and was let in by Peterson
in answer to his knock. If man
is let in by an accomplice it is break
ing in. The next thing we hear OF
Walker he is at the Merchants Ex-
change. / think it is fair to as
sumo that there was time and OPP
portunity to commit that offense be-
tween the time he left the Merchants
Exchange and got back after IL.
The proof of an dlibi must be clear
and connected. Mrs. Jackson's and
Mr.. Mehrten's evidence was briefly
commented upon to show how inn
portanl little things were in such
case. Mr.. Scringeour might have
seen Peterson talking with a man,
but it would have been much more
satisfactory if that man had been
produced, that is if there was any
thing in it. Peterson says he
did not speak to anybody at the
place indicated that night,
but is that important? Peterson
could not have been in very bad
state when he took Sharratt home.
His Honor again spoke of the diff
Guilty of people stating the time of
events from memory. Peterson tells
you that after leaving Walker at the
| Anchor saloon he then went home;
hackman proves that he took him
home. Why should Peterson and
Walker have conversation about
| those books Peterson said they had
talk six months ago. With regard
to the loan of Mrs. Walker there is
something strange. Mr.. Walker,
with his knowledge of Peterson's
difficulties with the latter's offer to
leave the safe open allowed his
wife to loan him her children's s
| money. What can we think-when
we come to compare conduct-of a
man who would allow his wife to
lend a man her childrens money
without any hope of his ever paying
it? With regard to Peterson's state
ment, if there is any corroborative
testimony you will believe it, and
there is no other alternative but to
bring in verdict of guilty. If
you find that he entered the Post
Office with guilty intent you
must find him guilty. If Walker
has accounted for his conduct on
that occasion you must give him the
benefit of it. 1t must be reason
able doubt. The Crown must make
out their case. They have charged
Walker with felony, and you must
find if they have made it out. 1t is
your duty to render such verdict
that you may go home to your beds
and feel thatyou have done right. In
small communities it is hard for a
Court and jury to pass upon people
whom we know well. If you think
it is not possible that the robbery
was not committed before IL, it is
for you to say whether Mrs. Walker
is to be believed. His Honor, in
closing, commented on the folly of
Peterson's object of having the
books destroyed; saying, very few
men who commit crime ever
think of the consequences. If they
did, there would be very much less
crime committed.
The jury retired at about o:4o and
at 1920 sent in message that they
could not agree. Being called into
Court, they were, after short COLO
guy with the Judge, recommended by
His Honor to try once more. They
returned at rI:4a and reported dis
agreement still, and were discharged,
His Honor then fixed defendants
bail at $4,000, with two sureties in
$4,000, additional, each.