The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-01-24
WAIALUA SHOOTING CASE.
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL BY DE-
PENDANTS COUNSEL.

In the Supreme Court this moru-
ing, before Mr.. Justice Bickerton,in
the case of j. r. Robertson found
guilty in the Waialua shooting case
by jury, the following motion was
made for new trial.
And now comes the defendant,
by Paul Neumann, Volney V. Ash
ford, and Gardner X. Wilder, his
attorneys, and moves for new trial
in the above cause, for the follow
ing reasons:
L. On the ground that testimony
was admitted from DR.. McKibbn as
to his opinion of the number of shots
fired: said DR.. McKibbin not being
first shown to be an expert at gun
ming, or in resistance to gun shots,
or in the cause and effect of spent
shot, and the said testimony being
based upon the effect of the shots
upon the body of Magoney.
2. On the ground that the verdict
is contrary to the evidence adduced
at the trial.
8. On the ground of misdirection
of the jury by the Court in instruct
ing them that they must find defend
ant guilty unless it appeared from
the evidence that, before shooting,
he had retreated to the utmost limit
of his power, until stopped by
wall or some impossible barrier:
Notwithstanding the evidence, even
of the prosecution, shows conclu-
sively that the shooting was done
from inside defendants own room,
after retreating from the pursuit of
| his antagonist, who came at him
with threats of ''cutting his liver
out" and after defendant had twice
warned him, while retreating to his
own room, "don't come any further
or I'll shoot"
4. That aside from the principle
involved in the general doctrine of
self defense, there were elements in
this case which made it exceptional.
The evidence shows that the defend
ant was defending his domicil, his
home, as we'll as his person, and
that he was in fear of his life, from
his pursuer. A mans house is his
castle, and if it devolved upon the
Court to correctly instruct the jury,
under the particular circumstances
of the case; i. e. as to man S
right to defend himself from attack
in his own household, which the
Court failed to do.
5. On the ground of misconduct
of the jury: in that certain of the
jurymen, TO wit, j. II. Black and J..
A. Burgett, stated on their COR sire
that they had never entertained or
expressed any opinion upon the mat
ter before them or any statement
hostile to the defendant therein
whereas in truth and fact they had
expressed such hostile opinions, and
were at the time of said trial enter
tanning feelings of bitter hostility to
the defendant herein, and had pre-
judged said defendant and declared
him guilty in advance of the trial ;
none of which said last mentioned
facts were known 10 the defendant
or his attorneys until after the trial.
This motion is made upon the atIi.
davits of j. G. Quincy and John NJ.
Vivas, and also of the defendant
and of his said attorneys, Paul Neu-
mann, Volney V. Ashford, anc
Gardner X. Wilder, all of which are
on file herein: as well as upon The
records and proceedings which form
part of this cause, and such othel
and further facts and circumstances
herein relevant, as may be present
ed at the hearing of the said motion
Dated this 22d day of January
1889. PAUL NEUMANN,
VoLNEY V. ASHFORD,
GARDNER X. WILDER.
The afiidayits were all read b
Col. Ashford.
, Deputy Attorney-General Peter
son read the affidavit of |. A. Bur
, gett in which he states he had n
recollection OF any such conversatio
having take place, and had used n
such language that he was unbias
ed at the time Of the trial. A SIM
lar AFFIDAVIT was presented on behal
of j. ii. Black, but it was not signe
' owing TO Blacks absence.
n Hon. Paul Neumann said tha
both Black and Burgett say the
' have no recollection Of any CONVEX
r sation taking place as stated in ia
affidayits of Viyaa and Quincy. an