The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-02-26

in the morning; John Lane was there
wien Warren and Townsend arrived
left for home when / saw Warren and
Townsend; John went away before L
left; nothing was said about arms be
ing landed when / was there; did not
know of any arms; il was daylight
and could see plainly.
Cross examined:-JOhn Jim and
went out to Waikiki on Thursday
under WilcOx's command; he did not
tell US why we were to go out; did
not say anything to John on Satur-
day about 1t.
w. o. Smith for the prosecution
Sunday evening January5th was the
first the Government knew OF the re-
bellion; John Lane did not give any
Information TO the Government so far
as know.
Robert Wilcox Was at Bertel-
mann's early Friday morning; was in
the canoe shed; Townsend, Warren
and came together; did not see John
Lane; would have seen him had he
been there; dill not see John after
that.
Cross examined Didn't see John
Thursday evening; when left Kaae's
with Jim Lane, Willie Lane and Ha-
kuole, was going to KakaakO.
John Lane:-Know Hakuole; no
place between him and me; know
Warren; at daybreak l left on my
brothers horse and came to town;
never heard any conversation about
arms.
Attorney Neumann began his
speech but remembered that he had
forgotten To question the defendant
with regard to the statements OF John
/. The Court allowed him to place
the witness on the stand again.
John Lane recalled:-I drove 1
out to Waikiki on Sunday night; had
no conversation with him in regard to
any fight or the landing of arms; did
not ask him to join in any fight.
Cross examined: - When I left
Kaae's house on Thursday night I
went under the orders of Wilcox who
told me to go to Bertelmann's and
there wait; had no conversation with
Wilcox in regard to an outbreak; do
not remember any conversation with
any one else in regard to the out
break; did not know what / went to
Waikiki for; Wilcox said he would
tell me the purpose upon his arrival;
did not see Wilcox upon my arrival
at Bertelmann'sj waited for him and
slept on Bertelmann's veranda.
The question, "where were You
going Sunday night when John L
drove you out ?' precipitated an
argument between counsel for defense
and the Judge-Advocate. The former
claimed that the latter had no right
to ask a question that he had not in
| troduced in the direct examination.
The latter held that his question was
! in the direct line of couuseps examin-
alton and was sustained by the court.
Cross examination cOntinued:-Was
| IN, Inn nj
night OF the outbreak; told I that
was going out to Bertelmann's, but
had no conversation about the fight
and the landing of arms; told Simon
| son, when he met US at the King
street bridge, that was going home
knew at that time that L was going
out to Bertelmann's.
Mr.. Neumann held that the testi-
mony brought forth by the prosecu-
ton was not sufficient to convict the
defendant OF the charge. He stated
that there were hundreds of people in
this city who had heard rumors of an
uprising among the natives and that
John Lane knew no more that these.
The testimony as given by John /,
Hakuole and Warren was contradict
DRY and unreliable. No matter what
suspicion might rest upon the accused
he could not be convicted on the testi.
mOny brought 1Orth.
Judge Advocate Robertson thought
that the only inference which could be
drawn from the testimony presented
was that John Lane was up to the
neck in the revolution, and was only
prevented by an accident from jOiUIng
into the fight. The bare denial Of the
defendant did not GO to prove that
Dick and Hakuole were lying when
they made their statements. He
thought it peculiar that John Lane
should be going out to Waikiki on
the night of the landing of arms and
on the night of the outbreak. The ma
ture and manner in which the evil
dence was given, together with the
circumstances pointed plainly to con-
viction.
Court adjourned until $50 this
morning.