The Hawaiian gazette., 1894-07-27

proportion 10 the force used upon him.
The 10th, 18th, 18th, 18th and l4th
are refused.
18th. Not only must the jury be
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that defendant killed Kauhane with
malice aforethought and not in self
defense, but the jury must also be sat
isfied beyond reasonable doubt that
the cause of death was the cut inflicted
by the defendant, and this cut must
have been the immediate and not the
remote cause of death.
18th. The uncontradicted evidence
is that the wound was not necessarily
mortal, but that on the other hand, was
wound most unlikely to cause death.
1t is therefore necessary for you to
trace with more than ordinary care
the cause of death. II is not sufficient
that you cannot discover the cause OF
death. You must be satisfied beyond
a reasonable doubt that death resulted
in consequence of the wound inflicted
by the defendant or you must acquit.
18th. A man is only answerable
for the natural and probable results Of
his acts; therefore IL you find that
Kauhaneis death was not naturally
and probably the result of defendants
acts you must acquit.
18th. The prosecution must prove
that the cut Kauhane received was in
tentionally inflicted by the defendant
and not the result of accident. Unless
this has been satisfactorily proved to
you beyond any reasonable doubt you
must acquit.
18th. You must eliminate all refer
ence of whatever assault defendant
may have made on Kaouli, as defend
ant is not on trial for that assault; he
is answerable for that in another
manner, except so far as it is evidence
of the circumstances under which the
act was done.
Goth. II there is reasonable doubt,
supported by the evidence, which is
consistent with the defendants limo
cence, either as to the cause of Kau-
hane's death or as to whether the kill
ing was excusable or justifiable, or
on any other ground, you must acquit.
Gentlemen, now leave the case in
your hands.
The following instructions were re-
fused:
"6th. You must be satisfied that de
PENDANT formed the design to kill
Kauhane and not any person in gem
eral before you can convict him OF
murder in the End degree.
9TH. You cannot consider what de-
PENDANT intended to do, you cannot
assume that he came ashore armed
with knife to kill, if necessary, any
one interfering with or attempting to
arrest him, this would oblige him to
prove affirmatively that he did not
intend to kill or injure anyone. The
law does not throw this burden upon
the defendant. What he actually did
affords no guide in determining what
he would have done had the officers
disclosed their official character and
their mission.
Sth. If the defendant had the knife
in his possession as he says to take
home, this is what he, or any other
private citizen, has right to do, but
it is entirely immaterlal whether he
had the knife in his possession or not,
so long as he used it only to repel an
attack, he had the right to resist to
any extent to protect himself from as
sault.
10th. Even though defendant was
in the act of committing an offense, il
the acts of the officers could have led
him honestly to believe that his life
was in danger, he was justified in US
ing the knife to defend himself as he
is alleged to have done.
The danger may not have been real;
it may have been only apparent. And
this apparent danger was to be judged
of by the defendant.
18th. The officers, by not declaring
that they were such, and by not CIV
ing the defendant clearly to under
stand for what cause they undertook
to make the arrest, acted unlawfully,
and defendant was justified in resist
ing, and if the officers pressed defend
ant so hard as to make it necessary to
choose between submission and Kill
ling, and under such circumstances
defendant did inflict the wound Of
which lZauhane died, you must acquit.
18th. Not only is it essential to the
rights OF the citizen that he shall be
required to submit only when the OFF,
cial character of the demand is made
known to him, but it is essential to
the dignity of the Government that
its servants shall be sheltered by their
official prerogatives only when they
are acting legally and give notice that
they so act.
18th. The testimony is uncontra-
dicted that no word was spoken to in
dictate that the officers or either of
them were policemen, or that they
were in the act of aIresting defendant,
nor is there any evidence bringing
home to defendant in any way knOwl-
edge that they were policemen, there
fore defendant is in the same position
and had the right to resist to the same
extent as though he had been attacked
by any private citizen, and unless you
find that he used excessive force, you
must aquit.
18th. The prosecution must not
only show that the injury was the
probable cause of the death, but that
it was the efficient and immediate
cause of the death, and the evidence
must establish this fact beyond a rea-
sonable doubt. If this has not been
done, you must acquit."
We consider and hold that there is
no error in the charge OF the Court,
nor in the refusal to give the instruc-
tiOns asked for.
The only observation we deem
proper to make here is that the law as
laid down by the Court was favorable