The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-07-16
TIE RnaEETSln CASE,
Instructions Asked by Defendants
Counsel.


Counsel.
Defendants counsel in the above
entitled cause, respectfully request
the presiding justice to instruct the
jury as follows, viz.
] The burden rests upon the
prosecution to prove by the evil
dence, and TO the satisfaction of the
jury beyond reasonable doubt, that
the defendant acted maliciously and
without authority or justification by
law. 1t is not requisite that the
defendant show that his assault was
justiiiable. lie cannot be found
guilty, unless the prosecution
shall show that it was unjustifable.
In other words, the prosecution
must, in order to obtain convic-
ton, show that the defendants act
was not doue in self-defence.
Woods Pr. Ev. sos. VIII. CIR. Ev.
Sect. 329.
2. The defendant is entitled to an
acquittah, if there is evidence enough
to cast reasonable doubt as to the
assault made by him having been
unjustitiablc.
3. "Where one is assaulted in
ones dwelling, he is not required to
retreat, but he may take the tres
passer's life, if such extreme force
is necessary to prevent an en-
trance" If the jury therefore find
from the evidence, that the defend,
ant in his dwelling was assaulted by
Magoney,t that is to say that Magoney
was maliciously attempting to do
him corporal injury without author
ity or justification by law, the jury
need not, in order TO acQuit the de-
PENDANT, find that he could have es-
capped by retreating from the threat
ened attack.
/. If the jury find from the evil
dence that Magoney had just attack
ed the defendant, thrown HIM down.
and scalded and bruised him in his
own dwelling, had been forcibly
elected by others, had threatened to
"cut out the liver" of the defendant,
gone to a shed close by in which
was a large knife known to the de-
PENDANT to be there, and immedi-
ately returned and tried to enter the
defendants dwelling, while still
cursing and threatening him, and
refusing to stop when warned to do
so by the defendant, the jury would
be at liberty to regard the act OF
defendant, in then firing a shot gun
at Magoney, as justifiable in defence
of himself and his property.
5. 1t is not for the Court, but foI
the jury to say whether the shooting
was justified by the facts.
6. If the defendant had cause
which would lead a prudent and
reasonable man to believe that Ma
goney was seeking to do him serious
personal violence, or to attack HIN
with knife, the jury are at liberty
to regard the shooting as a justif
able act of self defence.
z. No intent to kill is charged il
this case, but merely an assault anc
battery with dangerous weapon
The fact of the shooting being
shown, it remains merely to conside
whether it was done maliciously an(
unjustifiably. In determining whethe
the defendant was acting in defenc
of his person or habitation, to JUST
fly the shooting, it is not necessar
that danger to defendants perso
or. habitation actually existed, bu
it is enough if there was sucI
danger, 10 the defendants appre
hension as reasonable man.
s. In view of the defence that tn
shooting was reasonably required a
matter of self defence, the evidenc
is admissible of Magoney's turbu
lent, violent disposition.
8. The jury will acquit the de
PENDANT if the evidence leaves i
their minds any reasonable douh
whether he acted in self-defence.