The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-10-15
0GTlbhh Term.
Trisl Of Ito Fen fer Conspiracy,
Before His HOnor The cher
Justice
TUESDAY, Oct, 18th.

TUESDAY, Oct. 18th.
The King VS.. Ho Fon. Conspiracy.
The Acknowledgement and Ieputy
Attorney-Geueral and F. NJ. Hatch
for the Grown; Paul Neumann for
the defendant. The following jurors
were called: Hamilton johnson, c.
Crozicr, P. Opfergelt, c. A. Pea
cock, Thos. Lindsay, NJ. n. San
ders, II. NJ. Whitney, Jr., c. Bolte,
F. J. Lowrey, c. Hammer, A. M.
Mells, T. NJ. Starkey. The jury
was sworn TO answer all questions
put to them.
I. NJ. Starkey said he sat on the
jury 10 the Loomens trial, from the
evidence he had heard there he was
biased, and preferred not to sit on
this jury. l have no prejudice
against Ho Fon.
A. NJ. Mellis said he did not know
Ho Fon. He sat in the Ldbmens
trial and did not think he ought to
sit on this jury. The testimony
heard before would sway his iudg-
ment. Have no opinion as to
whether Ho Fon was guilty or not.
Could give the defendant an Impair
tinl trial, and render verdict iusti-
fed by the evidence and instruc-
tions.
Mr.. Neumann thought Mr.. Mellis
ought to be excused, rs he con-
scientiously says he ought not to sit
on the jury.
The Acknowledgement said the
Crown did not wish biased jurors.
Mr.. Mellis further said that the
testimony heard in the Loomens case
would not prejudice him IN this case.
The Court said he could not ex-
cuse the juror.
Mr.. Hammer could give the de-
PENDANT fair and unbiased trial. lie
had no race feeling.
Mr.. Lowrey knew Ho Fon. Had
heard ordinary accounts. Had no
prejudice for or against the defend
ant. Could give verdict according
TO the testimony.
Mr.. Bolte had known Ho Fon per-
sonally for long time. He could
try him according to the evidence
but could not give him the benefit
Of doubt as much rs someone he
did not know.
The Court excused Mr.. Bolte and
J. E. Brown was called.
H. M. Whitney, Jr., knew Ho
Fon. Sat on the last trial. Know
something of his connection with the
late rebellion. Have q fixed opinion
in the matter.
The Court excused Mr.. Whitney
and Aug. Ehlers was called.
NJ. N. Sanders knew Ho Fon by
sight, sat in the Loomens trial, and
had formed an opinion that would
require evidence to remove. Gould
render u just and impartial verdict
on the evidence presented.
| Thos. Lindsay had no acquafn
lance with the defendant. From
evidence heard had an impression
that he was present at the meetings
Mr.. Neumann moved that all the
jurors who sat in the Loomens case
ought to be excused from this case
There had been precedent, anC
the same ruling ought to be obtain
ed if this man was to have fai
trial.
The Court refused the motion, Il
which Mr.. Neumann noted excep
tons.
Mr.. Lindsay said he had no rae
prejudice.
G. A. Peacock sat in the Loomen
case, and thought from the evidenc
heard that the charge against Ill
Fon had been proved. He was ex
cused and w. o. Atwater called.
p. Opfergelt could not give tn
defendant fair trial. He was ex
cused, and +. NJ. Marshall called
G. Crozier could give the defend
ant fair trial without prejudice.
II. Johnson had formed an opin
ion and WAS excused, Max Eckar
being called.
j. L. Brown had no political O
other bias against the defendant
Could render just and impartia
verdict on the evidence and instruc
tons.
A. Ehlers from the evidence hear
had not formed an opinion. Coul'
decide on the evidence.
w. o. Atwater had had converse
ton with others, which rather Unfit
enced him. Ho Fon being preser
! at the meetings, he thought he WE
guilty. From tho evidence to b
, presented he could give verdi,
accordingly.
+. NJ. Marshall had formed I
!. opinion as to the guilt or innocenc
: of the defendant from the evidenc
heard. Max Eckart WAS question:
, with the same result.
Mr.. Neumann challenged T. n
Starkey, and G. Il. Gullck WI
called.
Mr.. Gulick said he had read u
evidence in the Loomens trial. lie
: formed an opinion, and felt biase'
| lNa1 -, a. 81