The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-07-28

lied officer in accordance with law, or
when done by lawful war upon an
enemy in battle; il may also be juSti-
fable in necessary SELF defense. \
man in the defense of his person
against another who manifeStly in
tends TO do him violence, may repel
force by force but he must have been
in imminent and manifest danger
either OF losing his life or some VIC
| lent and serious injury before the law
Will justify him in taking the life Of
another The danger must have been
actual and required urgent steps. The
mere uneXecuted scheme or plans OF
another i not a necessity for the eX-
/ ercise Of extreme measures \ man
/ Is not obliged to wait until he has re-
! ceived an injury before repelling the
/ attack, lie may anticipate the attack
/ OF his adversary, but he must have in
good faith and with honest intent en-
| deavOred 10 have avoided the violence
| of the assault. y delusiOn that man
/ i TO be attacked by another will not
| justify him in taking the life of anoth-
er unless it Is shown that the danger
| is real and extreme. The means of
! defense must De in proportion to the
danger. If one retaIiates with weap-
on entirely out OF proportion 10 the
attack threatened, then he IS not JUS
titled if he killed his adversary. The
| law looks with extreme dIsfaVOr upon
the use OF any weapon calculated to
produce death and requires the best or
| reasons TO show justification or eX-
cuse.
Many instances have occurred in
which death has been caused by the
use of an instrument not in itself dam
gerOus, but by reason OF peculiar cir
cumStauces, or because some extreme
" vital or sensitive spot has been
injured and death was the result.
The law in its leniency has allowed
the crime to be reduced from murder
TO manslaughter, for the law seeks to
punish only those who have been
give the defendant the benefit
OF all doubt as to his mani
fest and certain intent. But the law
also demands that all rules for the
protection of life and property shall
be literally complied with, and holds
sternly 10 account all those who are
transgreSsOrs. The life of q man Is
considered the most precious OF al
things on earth, and he who takes the
life of another without Justification Is
guilty of the highest social crime
known 10 our law, aud with two eX-
ceptions is only equalled in its pun
ishment for the political crime of trea-
son. For these reasons the law scru-
tiniZes every act connected with the
killing OF every human being with
the utmost particularly in order TO
determine the guilt or innocence of
the accused. And this necessity has
arisen so often that the rules OF law
made use of in determining slch cases
are plain and well defined.
EXcusable homicide IS where per-
i, al lou Ffnt ~
bv accident kills another; as where q
man Is working with an Ak or ham
mer and without any FAULT or negl-
gence on his part the head flies OF
and kills p bystander. Here again
the law interpOses and does not allow
the unfortunate one TO be punished,
provided that il is fully proven that it
was by accident pure and simple. But
if the killing be shown to have been
done while in the performance of a
legal act, yet accompanied by negi-
gence on the part of the accused, the
law will hold him responsible in the
degree of his culpability. SO strongly
does the law draw the lines in this
regard, that where the performance
of the act Is of itself legal, yet if any
way likely 70 produce death, the
utmost care Is required 10 be pre-
served by all engaged in the transac-
ton. But in cases or this nature the
elements which are necessary 10 con-
stitute the crime of murder, namely,
that of malice, Is wanting; this then
is the distinguishing line between the
crime of murder and the lesser one of
manslaughter.
Malice Is the impulse which stimu-
lates desire and fOrmulates the at
tempt which leads a man 10 commit 81 |
crime. 1t i the presence OF this in
tent. founded upon malice, which de- |
termineS the nature OF the act, and |
without il the act OF murder can
not be committed. 1t becomes neces- !
sary then that we consider with pre- |
cisiou this distinction, in order that |
we may have i clear aud Intelligent !
understanding as 10 the legal char !
acter OF the act and what evidence Is |
required in order 10 determine its |
presence.
Every person Is presumed 10 be !
innocent until he has been proven TO /
be guilty, aud the law also presumeS /
that every sane person intends the /
natural and ordinary consequences Of |
his intended set. Every person i J
presumed 10 be sane until proven 10 I
De otherwise. The intent with which /.
an act was done i 10 be gathered from (
all the circumstances attending IL If /
a person deliberately sets himself 10 /
accomplish = certain thin = he i pre- .
suuei TO intend al. the probable and 1.
natural results of his ac-, and the law Z
does uO- permit him 20 say after the I
commission IF the act that he did not .
Intend it. results, but be must, in F.
case death has resulted. show justi- /.
ricati0u or excuse. Il = the intent I
which constitutes the crimiualjty of /
the act. and where the act Ia itself i /.
Indifferent and only becomes crimiual {
when done with particular intent, /
then the intent must be proved. But I
where the act in itself i unlawful, .
the burden i upon the defendant 10 /
show Justification or excuse, and upon /
failure 70 do 80 the law implies > !
criminal intent. 80 where the set OF
killing another i proved, malice
aforethought shall be presumed, and /