The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-05-24

| you were sworn you undertook to dis
| charge this duty without fear of the con-
sequences. 1t is function similar to
that of Judge, not the same, but sim
| liar. Judges are open to convictions.
when they give decisions upon the facts
as they sometimes have to do in iury
| waived cases. Your relation is transit
tory one. You 60 back and assume your
ordinary avocations. In considering this
case you must weigh it as you would the
ordinary events of life. What impression
has the evidence made upon you? There
are some facts so absolutely proved and
not denied that think you can find
them true.
On the 29'h of October last there was
found body of a Japanese suspended
by his neck from a telephone pole. It
was conspicuous place, near the only
public building, the building where the
law for that District is administered.
The hands were SO securely tied that
there can be no doubt it was not case
of suicide. At whose hands did he meet
his death? DR.. Williams says the de-
ceased was, in his opinion, healthy
man. The organs were not diseased.
That he died from violence; the neck
was dislocated; both lungs and brain
were congested. He cannot undertake
to say he was alive when suspended. I
leave it to you to say whether he could
not have been strangled before the rope
was placed on his neck. You need not
find whether he was strangled by hands
at his throat or by hanging, or by the
fall. If he was alive when he fell into
the hands of those who killed him the
manner of .he killing is immaterial. As
to the rope, it got over the pole in some
manner. One man could not have done
this deed.
It is not well to disbelieve witnesses
merely on account of discrepancies as to
time. Witnesses do not testify positively
as to time. / leave it to you, gentlemen,
to say whether you find much irreconcil-
able discrepancies between Richmond
and Lala, as for instance if you find that
Richmond came up from one direction
and Lala from another is it not quite
possible that Lala did not see Richmond.
The theory suggested is possible: that
it was not intended to kill Goto, that
it was merely intended to pull him
up and down to extort confession.
Malice aforethought need not have been
formed for weeks or months before
hand. If without conspiracy defendants
laid their hands violently on Goto and
so used him that he died it is murder. If
you find the killing was not with malice
you find in either of the three degrees of
manslaughter. The Grown is not bound
to prove motive. 1t is often great
satisfaction if the Crown can show a
motive. There is no adequate human
motive for taking life. 1t is not neces-
sary to show motive. It might be a mo-
tive you would sympathize with, or one
you would spurn. II done without any
possible motive it would be evidence of
insanity. 1t is suggested that Goto was
killed by Japanese. Would the laborers
who look up to Goto and consulted him
be likely to kill him? 1t is not necessary
to know who killed Goto if these defen-
dants did not. The question is did these
men do it? You need not convict all of
murder. You may acquit one or two or
all as in your belief the testimony would
warrant. There has been some tend
ency to levity here. feel very sorry for
that. It may be a natural relief or reac-
ton from the high tension we have been
under. On the one hand we invite the
Japanese to come here by the thousand.
We must treat him fairly. We must DO
| Justice though the heavens fall. / would
saw the same in the case of Chinaman
or Portuguese. / do not ask you to con-
yict to prevent the Japanese from taking
the law in their own hands; or that you
will acquit because the defendants are
YOUR own countrymen. rs to conviction
on the testimony of an accomplish, Do
YOU find that Lala was an accomplish
He admits that he took part in the
assault. The rule is this: A jury may
convict upon the evidence of an accom-
plice; but should not advise you to
convict on the unsupported evidence OF
an accomplice. l doubt if Lala was an
accomplice in the killing. What is cor
roboration? What were the whereabouts
of Steele? If he was absent from his
quarters that night he might have been
a participant in that affair; that alone
would not be sufficient to convict him,
but does it not support Richmond? As
to time, it is not safe to say man is un'
true because he does not state time ex.
actly. You must reconcile the evidence
if possible. It is for you to say, gentle
men. if Richmond and Lala had an
opportunity to see each other before
Richmond testified.
It is argued that if the stories cores
pond exactly the testimony is made up
And if they do not correspond, that the
stories are false, because contradictory
And so it is, gentlemen.
Iwould be glad to refer to the evidences
for the defense, but it is all almOs
directed to discrediting the testimony to-
the Crown.
Mrs. Mills evidence has been com
mented on. It is not necessary to SAY
more. The cases of the defendants mus
he considered separately. A case mus
be made against each. There is YER.
little confederation as to Watson and a
to Blabon, except something said b.
! Tletsen.
You are authorized to convict withou
confederation. You may acquit defend
; ants or any one them. am not calle'
upon to express any opinion upon tn
facts. / do not intend to do so. charg
YOU Lala was an accomplice in tn
assault. 1t is for the jury to say, II n
was an accomplice in the murder.
The Judge closed his remarks at 4 At
and the Jury were taken to the juryroOr
and they stayed there till IL 80.
! The yerdicts brought in were:
8 J. r. Mills and Tom Steele, mar
2 slaughter in the second degree.
t Biabon and Watson, granddaughter
the third degree.
9 Mills and Steele were both sentence
on Thursday to nine years at hard labo
: Blabon to five years at hard LABOR, an
It Watson to four years at hard labor. d
e had lighter sentence as ne mas tamil
q depending on him.