The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-11-01

Mr.. Rosa made motion for discharge
of defendant on the following grounds:
l. That by the PRONUNCIATION and adop-
ton by the new constitution of 1887 the
law of treason was abrogated and there
Is now no law of treason in this King
dom.
2. That the evidence shows that the
object of the conspiracy to wit, to commit
treason, was in fact committed, a con-
spiracy to commit such felony cannot be
indicted and punished as an offense
distinct from the felony The one is
merged in the other: Refers to Mass.
page 108.
3. That the discharge of the jury in
the previous trial of this defendant is
bar to the present trial.
His Honor over-ruled the motion on
all points. Mr.. Rosa excepted.
AT 2 40 His Honor allowed a recess of
ten minutes, and on the re-assem bling
again, the defence commenced the pre-
sentation of their case, the first witness
called being:
A. s. Mahaulu, who on being sworn.
stated-Am under arrest for conspiracy;
l gave myself up; August 1st Mr.. Henry
Waterhouse picked me up near George
Beckley's residence.
His Honor now cautioned the witness
against giving testimony which might be
used against him when on trial himself
Witness, continuing-Was brought to
Police Station on August LIST; was in the
palace yard July 3Oth.
A question asked by Mr.. Rosa as to
whether ''there was firing going on there
that day." was objected to by the At
torney-General on the ground of irrela-
vancy, and the Court sustained the OBJ
lection. Mr.. Rosa withdrew the witness
and Immediately stated that the defense
rested. He then at 3 :05 commenced his
address to the jury, speaking in Ha-
waiian. He ended at O'Clock, and Mr.
Hatch followed, in argument for the pro-
secution, ending at 5 O'Clock.
THE CHARGE.
At 05 His Honor began his charge
to the jury and ended at 5:45. His
Honor spoke substantially as follows:
Gentlemen of the jury; this important
case has had your attention since Mon
day of this week this is now the evening
of the fourth day. l cannot say that
time could have been saved for | con-
slider that the term has been fully occu-
pied in listening to the testimony pre-
sented by the prosecution. This case has
attracted an extraordinary degree of at
tention as has been evidenced by the
large audiences that have stood for hours
unwearily listening. A very unusual
offence in this country is charged against
defendant. 1t has excited so much
public interest that it became great
difficulty to get jury of twelve men to
try the case. Remember you each on
your oaths have told the Court and the
public that you had not made up your
minds to the guilt or innocence of de-
PENDANT. II any of you had said that he
had made up his mind he would have
been disqualified like large number of
others. The time has now nearly ar
rived when you must come to conclu-
sion and must decide this case.
l wish to charge you that you must
form your opinion of this case from what
you have heard in the witness box. If
you are true to your responsibilities you
will not allow yourselves to be guided by
the approval or otherwise of outside peo-
Pile. 1t should make no difference to
you what the common people or news
papers may say. A good many things
have been said in the course of argu-
ment which the Count regrets and will
allude to one or two and correct. There
is no law that requires Hawaiian cases
to be tried first in preference to foreign
cases. The rule of the Court says the
clerk shall make up the calendar putting
the Hawaiian cases first on the calendar
That has been DONE The responsibility
and order of trial rests upon the Attor-
ney-General and not on the Court. 1t
makes no difference to you whether A is
tried first or B or c.; each case stands on
its own merits and nothing else should
be considered.
L would call your attention to differ
ences between moral and legal wrongs.
The law in every country is that larceny
is crime, it is natural wrong and is
also made so by law. 1t is no moral
wrong to drive Car at night without
lights, but it is an offence against the
statute laws of this country. There
is no moral wrong in storing over
ten cases of kerosene oil in one place
yet the law forbids it. ALI reli-
gious people believe in thanking God
for his mercies, but there is no law to
compel them so to do. The only offense
or wrong which jury can have cogniz-
ance of are those %acts which are forbid
den by the statute laws OF this country.
Even if person should admit that he
committed a wrong and then endeav-
ored to offer as excuse that he did not
know the law againstit it, that would be no
excuse; the ignorance of the law excuses
no one. AS l said before, this is very
unusual case. In this the defendant
offers plea of not guilty, in the face of
evidence given by himself in another
trial in which the contingent ingredients
are admitted. How can the ingredients
of any ofense be proved. Strongest
proof would be by the admission of the
party himself. He may do that in either
one of two ways: by pleading guilty or
by going on the stand and reciting all
the facts. Wilcox went on the stand in
the Loomens case, and before he testified
he was cautioned by the Court. He re-
cited the narrative of events from the
meeting at Iwilei up to the entrance and
occupancy of the palace yard on July
30th How can you acquit him on that
evidence? If you do acquit him you will
have to disbelieve him when he says he
did do those acts, or if you admit the
facts to be true, then only by his acts not
being an offense against the law. In this
I would only remind you that you pro-
missed to regard the construction OF the
Court regarding the law. In order to
acquit, you have either to- disbelieve
Wilcox or 60 contrary to the instructions
of the Court. He has admitted secret
conspiracy to effect the repeal of a gen.
eral law, the constitution, and to turn
out the present Ministry, by show of
foroo LIa hoe fold Won that he gathered