The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-01-19

inside.
j. +. Eckardt, sworn-I am in charge
Of Queens Hospital; know Magoney, he
was IN hospital five weeks; his temper
is rather fiery and excitable; he was
rather refractory patient; Magoney made
a remark when l was present in room,
when his brother and Mr.. FlChr were
there, that d" Ii Robertson hadn't got
that shot at me, he would have been
wearing a wooden oyerCoat by this
time" he spoke so loud that l had to
ask him not 70 disturb other patients.
Cross-examined by Mr.. Whiting
That remark was made about q week
after Magoney came to hospital; he was
not suffering more pain than was to be
expected from nature OF injuries; dres- |
sing with carbolic acid does not cause !
irritation, that is, until suppuration be-
gins: it began in this case about ten |
days after admission.
Thomas Maloney. sworn-Was an in |
mate of Queens Hospital when Magoney |
was there; remember when Flohr and /
Magoney's brother were there; CONVEX
sation was SO loud that | told them to 60 !
out OF the hospital; l have had private |
conversations with Magoney; heard his |
reference to wooden overcoat," do not |
remember other conversations OF that
kind.
V. V. Ashford, sworn-I went down to
premises where shooting occurred; this
Il approximately correct plan; I did not
measure distance from door to veranda
step, it is about FIVE or six feet; found
blood on jamb of door ana mark of quite
a pool OF blood on floor, not as if rubbed
on but as il it had spurted there; don't
remember whether step TO veranda was
high or low step; Magoney's bedroom
door is perhaps thirty feet from Rob
ertson's, but the rooms themselves are
not more than fifteen feet apart; saw
cartridge belt hanging where Robertson
said it was forget whether l saw the
gun Or not; (to juror as matter OF
opinion l don't think two barrels could
90 off at short distance anu sound like
one discharge.
Cross-examined-Hav in my expert
ence fired two barrels together; never
IlistOOk two fOr one at short distance;
my impression is that l did not examine
outside of door.
Defense rests.
Mr.. Neumann addressed the jury for
the defense, beginning at 3 40 p. IN. He
claimed that the evidence showed that
Magoney had brought his injury upon
himself by his violence, his threats
against Capt. Robertson and, so far as
the latter believed, his attempt to exc
cute those threats. There were conflict
ing statements in the testimony for the
prosecution, which made the case better
for the defendant. Among all the other
witnesses for the prosecution none had
supported the statement of MagOney
that Capt. Robertson committed or at
tempted an assault upon him with an AK
handle Mr.. Eckardt's evidence showed
that MagOney was man OF violent
temper, and that it had been his inten-
ton, according to his own words, to do
serious injury to the Captain and per
haps take his life. Reasonable ground
was established for believing that Rob
ertson was in actual bodily fear, and it
did not require that man should be q
! coward to defend himself as Robertson
| had. The defense had nothing to do
with the witnesses for the prosecution,
| but not one OF these would testify that
more than one shot had been fired, eX-
! cept Dr. McKibbin who said that from
| the nature of the wound there must have
! been two shots fired. There was no sur
! geon whose diagnosis or opinion on a
! pathological question he would more
readily accept than that of DIR. McKib-
| bin, but in the cunning matter he con-
| sidered tbs theory Of two shots WAS ire
| concilabIe with the evidence of eyewit-
! ncSSSS. 1lGIS were Two quilting uiCll
on the jury who perhaps could explain
! how shots from a single discharge could
have penetrated Magoney's foot, his
shoulder and his cheek at that short
range. Perhaps Magoney was in the
act of stopping to mount the veranda
and being a small man the focus was
| thus reduced so as to admit of the
wounds described. Counsel commented
upon the testimony in detail, to show
! that MagOney brought the damage upon
| himself by his criminal conduct, and
that Robertson was fully justified in
! shooting him 10 protect himself against
what he feared was to be dangerous and
serious assault. The contradictions OF
and inconsistencies in Magoney's own
! evidence were such as should take it al
together out of their consideration. He
| testified that he never set foot upon the
! floor of that house after he was put out,
| or walked out as he said himself; yet II
was clearly proved that be was in the
| act Of stepping upon the veranda when
shot. That was why he (cOunseD had
asked about the blood: it was shown to
! be on the veranda and on the door
! lambs. and was undoubtedly MagOney's.
After being warned off the premises on
account Of his violent conduct, it would
| have served him right if he had lost his
| life.
Mr.. Whiting addressed the jury for
| the Crown, beginning at 4 30 O'Clock.
He briefly explained his position i'll the
! case, having been asked only the previ-
Gus evening to assist the Government.
! The evidence OF Magoney and the other
| employees OF Robertson at that time, was
! conclusive to show that MagOney was
! the coolest man in the whole company
| All the others were excited, Robertson
so much so that he does not seem to have
/ known what he was doing. 1t seemed
! very strange that all the cursing was
! done by M2gOney, as most men would
/ find il hard to be calm after receiving
! such burn as Robertson. There was
no doubt about Robertson firing the shot
/ that injured Magoney. The whole case
/ cOnyerged in the question whether Rob
! ertson was Justified IN the shooting, and
! the Court would instruct them as to how
/ far a man could 90 under the circum-
/ stances proved. lie submitted 10 the
! jury that the fear OF MagOney getting a
J knife was not the cause OF Robertson firing
! at Magoney. 4 man with gun In his
| hand should know how TO use II, when
! to use it and that at the last moment,
and ne submitted that defendant did not
/ exercise the Judgment required, but was
! guilty OF the assault here charged.
Judge Bickerton began charging the
/ jury al :35. There was now no doubt
as to the defendants having fred the