The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-04-12

ever sat on n murder ttldl Tie
hoped IL would be their last. Their
responsibility was great toward 500
cety, Us well as TO the prisoner
whose life was in their hands. 1t
was competent for them TO find a
verdict of either murder or man
slaughter as the evidence justified.
The law went even further and
allowed a verdict of assault. Some.
thing had been said of evident wish
of prosecution TO secure n convic-
ton. Gentlemen, it is their duty for
the protection of society, for your
protection, when violent death has
occurred. to make searching in
vestigation and try TO have the guilty
person punished. II is also the duty
Of the counsel for the defense to do
everything in his power TO clear his
client or secure for him fair trial.
II was necessary for the prosecution
to prove the defendant guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt. Defendant was
master of vessel and aS long as lie
continued so he had right to on.
force discipline. But evidence Was
clear that he lost control of his crew
by his own unlawful acts on board.
Defendant told them himself that he
was drunk, as drunk as Akoni was.
II is my duty to tell you that the
Coroner went as far rs his duty re-
quircd him in warning the prisoner
as TO making statements, and what
ever defendant said voluntarily could
be used against him. They had
right, however, to consider defend
ants testimony that he gave his
statements under the influence Of
fear. Drunkenness had not been set
up rs n defense in this case, but it
was his duty TO tell them that the
law was that drunkenness formed no
excuse for crime. lie cited the case
of The King VS.. Brown in Illus
uation, where man killed
his shipmatc with whom he had
long been on warm terms of
friendship. Had it been shown that
Akoni fell overheard in n wrcstlc
with Palu the case would be differ.
ent one, but there was no testimony
that it was anything of this kind.
There was no testimony from the
others to prove that Akoni was adj
vancing on Palu, but they said that
Immediately after Akoni had used
those threatening words Palu went
aft and struck him with the oar. If
Palu began striking Akoni with the
oar before lie was attacked himself,
the threats made by Akoni were no
justification. If the intention was
in Palu's mind u moment before he
struck the fatal blow, to kill Akoni
or force him overheard. it was sufli-
cicnt to show mnrdeIous intent.
They had to find if it is true that
Palu said his enemy was dead,
because if that is true il is strong
evidence against defendant. In the
same way they were to judge if it
was true Palu told the others to say
nothing, and whether the knife was
open or closed in Akoni's hand.
His Honor clucidated other points
of the evidence, and then gave the
law bearing on the case. 1t was not
necessary that the death should be
the direct result of the violence, but
if death cnsucd from train of
events traccable to the violence it
was murder. If n man caused the
death of another without intention
to kill him it was manslaughter.
The careless handling of pistol, or
administration of medicine with
reckless disregard to life, or any
such actions, if loss of life was
thereby caused, constituted man
slaughter. If Akoni fell overheard
in struggle with defendant and
was drowned, and there had been
no intention to kill him, it was only
manslaughter. TO justify killing it
was necessary for defendant to show
that he was in imminent danger of
bodily harm, and, as held previous
ly by this Court, he must have been
in situation of danger from which
he could not escape by flight. The
Court concluded by passing on in
structions requested by counsel,
and at l0:lS O'Clock the jury re-
tired to consider their verdict.
mr. II