The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-07-16

| peHT, y. UTdneg, honey and a. Camp
bell. A native named Keloa was to ais
have been witness for the prosecution
but he was non est. A double-barrelec
gun was shown as evidence.
Angus Campbell was .afterward re
called by the defence.
MIR. w. A. Whiting for the prosecution
stated the case for the Crown, and the1
called DR.. Trousseau who was the frs
witness sworn.
The evidence is very lengthy: and. a.
most OF the facts came out at the pre-
yious trial, we omit tue repetitions; but
IN place thereof, give in full the Court,
charge to the jury wherein reference i:
made to the most salient points OF the
evidence given at this trial.
w. A. Whiting and A. p. Peterson
were attorneys for the prosecution, and
\ 5. Hartwell and Paul Neumann were
attorneys for the defence.
a recess was taken from II noon until
1 p. m.
When all the evidence had been taken,
and the cause had been argued ~ the
attorneys on both sides, the Court
charged the jury as follows:
CHARGE OF THE COURT IN THE ROBERTSON
CASE.
''The Court has no doubt that the Jury
will consider this case entirely apart
from anything except what has been
heard here.
L charge you that when the assault is
proven the inference OF the law is that
1t is what is called malicious, and that it
Is for the party defending to establish
his justification,
1t is not necessary for the prosecution to
directly show that there was no justii
cation. 1t is a matter for the de-
fence to show that there is u justifica-
ton. That is the law by our statutes,
the same as in murder
| have considerable to say about the
difference between Justification and ex-
tenuatiOn. There is the same general
rule of law for justification OF self-defence
as to an assault upon another just as in
murder
There is this important difference in
case of murder and case OF assault.
Ii this were case of homicide and
charged as murder, then the circum-
stances OF extenuatiOn such as the pre-
yious ARRAY might reduce murder to
manslaughter in the first, second or
third degree. IL might extenuate it
very much and alternate it down
to something of a light char
acter; but, in the case oil this assault
and battery, the verdict must be guilty
or not guilty. You cannot find him
guilty OF any offense less than this. He
must be justified altogether or he must
be found guilty.
1t is not for you to consider the matter
Of eXtenuation. That is Tor the Court to
consider, ii there is a conviction.
The law OF self-defense has been set
.Orth in this country in the case OF the
King VS.. Bridges Oils Honor here read
rom the case referred to-. There was no
second assault by Magoney on Rob
9rtson.
The first affray in the house is divided
Jtf from the transactions afterwards
occurring. Undoubtedly Robertson
suffered somewhat severely in the assault
IN him in the house. Was it in conse-
Iuence OF thatinjury or in consequence of |
he anger which it excited in him that he
made the assault He was not Justified |
II making this assault on Magoney. 1t |
would not be self defence against that
ttack, and it is therefore not to be con-
ldered except as an Interpretation of the |
ttitude of the parties. His anger against
Inn would not justify him in assaulting
i'm. There must be something in the
econd transaction to justify that. There
must have been necessity in the trans
ctions after the first, i'll the action OF
to justify the assault OF Robert
on.
The act OF Robertson must be judged
Y what appeared to him then and there.
# course, tie threatening attitude OF
Iagoney could be coupled with threats
e had before made; and the principle
hich gave you first applies here, that
is anger would not be justification on
hich he could be acquitted. 1t might,
owever, be an extenuation with the
curt were he convicted. If he had
filtered damage or wrong, he had re-
purse to the law. He could not on ac-
punt OF the first affray be justified in
taking an assault upon Magoney, if he
id make it.
Considering whether Robertson was
such position that he might justifi-
bly, use' this weapon, you must also
,nsider the protection which the de- I
ndant had from others. That is an
1portant consideration. l think no
le would say that any one now in this
om would be justified in using fire.
ms against another individual to pro-
ct his life. There is sufficient protec-
On here.
The evidence is that certainly there
ere two men at hand, two men OF {
endly disposition to defendant-Reney /
I'd Angus Campbell. They, one or {
It'll, would have been able to protect ?
obertson. They had not saved him r
1m the first sudden encounter, but :
uld have saved him from the last. Il
You are to consider whether there was a
overruliRg necessity on the part OF !
1bertson to save his life by shooting s
Agency. You will consider whether, C
IN the whole evidence, Robertson ad-
need or retreated in this case. The f.
" says he must get out OF the way if a
can. n
There is a great deal OF evidence as to f.
neither there were two shots or one, L
d that bears in two directions. N
1t is argued by counsel for the defend a.
t, that If there were two shots fired W
e was shot from distance, and it was !,
t sufficient-therefore there was a d
stifcation in firing again. On the tC
ler hand there is the view that it was q
continued aggravated attack OF Rob "
son by firing one shot and then an k
Ter shot. You have to consider q.
neither Magoney was in the attitude of :
ing to assault Robertson. 4
| drink the argument that Richardson ~