The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-03-10

its
The defendant moved for a trial on the ground that
the verdict contrary the law and the evidence and the
refusal of the asked
There twenty-five instructions requested bv defend
and and most of them refused by the court which
defendant excepted but he has abandoned them except
twentieth which follows: Your personal opinion as TO
facts properly be considered the basis of
your verdict You may believe that certain facts
but only upon evidence introduced upon
the trial. and from that and that alone you form your
verdict unaided unasted and mnfuenced by opinions
Prescriptions not formed upon the testimony"
The court charged the jury
Gentlemen the jury the defendants on trial before YOU
charged with manslaughter in the first degree by killing
Lee Man Chit Honohna, District of Hilo, of
Hawaii, the 31st day of May, 1897
"Manaughter defined by the laws country to be the
killing of human being without malice aforehought and with
out authority justification extenuaton by law.
Ihere is evidence of the defense of authority justification
exenuation by law in this The are were the
acts committed alleged by the defendants either of them
and did such acts the death of Lee Man Chit.
Il charge you that the unlawful killing of human being
without malice and without intent KILL committed in the
performance of act unlawful in ITSELF such for
assault and battery, is mansaughter.
81 also charge you that every material fact necessary
tue the oense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
by the prosecution
It is necessary for the prosecution establish beyond
reasonable doubt that assault committed by the defend
ants either of them alleged in the charge.
n order to establish mansaugher it also necessary for the
prosecution establish beyond reasonable that death was
caused by act of the defendants of the and
sderng the death charge you that the act or acts
must be directly and Immediately connected with the DEATH
and that the person would died when he did had the
act not been committed
Every person charged with presumed until
proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt There be
the jurys mind abiding conviction amounting
certainty of the guilt of the accused IF after considering
the evidence you say you have abiding
guilt the accused either of them you satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt
Under the case the jury NAV convict either
both of the defendants of the onse of mansaugher the
first degree manaugter in the second degree mansaugher
in the third degree of the oene of assault and battery the
proofs may
he jury the Judges of the facts Tt you to
slider the credb Of the witnesses that have been presented
before you and of the weight to be attached their testimony
The responsibility you to judge of the facts in issue
in this The courts of this country prohibited from
commenting the testimony when addressing the jury
here evidence tending show by the deceased
person ustng assault and battery other violent upon
his either upon the part of either of these defendants
other person.
the evidence and beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant
Hickey did violent act the deceased which resulted in
his death although such result uninended they will
find that defendant guilty.
"The law raises presumption against the prisoners but
every presumption the law favor of their innocence and in
order convict them of the crime alleged in the Indictment
of lesser included in every material fact necessary
to constitute such must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt and if the jury entertain reasonable doubt upon any
single fact element constitute the crime,
your duty give the prisoners the benefit of such doubt and
acquit them
"n criminal where the evidence strong
possibility of the guilt the party accused
still if fails establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt
of the defendants in the form charged by the
indictment then is the duty of the jury acqut the de-
PENDANTS.
eff reasonable doubt exists in your mind whether the
deceased died of wounds inflicted by the defendants then the
defendants entitled the benefit of such doubt and
should render verdict of not guilty.
The defendant took exception the charge given by
the court 1t substantially the request for instruction
number twenty of the defendant and fail in what
defendant injured by the refusal of the court to give
specifically does appear that defendant pointed the
trial court the necessity of this request in this
We fail to that the defendant preudced by its
fusa The charge given full and fair and covered the
points of the which called for instruction.
The testimony for the prosecution shows that the deceased
working in the fields; about SO o'clock Defend
Hickey struck deceased the back with the fiat side of
knife then took him by the neck pressed him to the
ground and kicked him and then pulled him up again and
him strong shove-grabbed him by the throat threw hin