The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-02-11

down by the would be dhcut TO ind legal ground
upon which aside verdict OF conviction
law.
We follow and adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court per
Harlan j. in the of Sparf Hensen United States
156 [. S. 81 1885, There it was held that trial in
of the United States of person accused of committing
the crime of murder if there be evidence upon which the
properly find the defendant guilty OF ofene ncud
ed less than the charged,
them that they verdict of guilty of mansaughte
any oene less than the charged and in such
if the defendant guilty of the oense charged
the duty of the jury verdict of guilty. Two
of the Justices dented being their view that in the Federal
Courts the jury the judges of both law and fact The
in Darts United States 165 Z. S. 373 0S97)
per Brewer j. held affirming the of Spof Hansen
United States follows The last instruction asked
in reference manslaugher But under the evidence there
any of the law this There
testimony reduce the oense any there below
the grade of murder If the defendant and responsible
for his actions there nothing upon which suggestion of
any inferior degree of mansaughter could be made &c
In a decided by the court date between
Sparf d Hansen and DdUs the held the law
but ordered trial because they found evidence relevant
the issue mansaugher and said that long there
evidence of mansaghter though the evidence that
murder and mansaughter the opinion of the
simply overwhelming the cedibiy and force of the evidence
the jury and of law for the decision
the Stevenson United States 162 e. S. 313 S96
The Supreme Court of the United States in Spar Hansen
many decisions of state sustain the authority charge
the circuit Judge did in the before We refer
them.
PeopIe q. Barry 90 Cal. Al;
People McNutt, 90 Cal 65S;
Clark a. Commonwealth, 1913 Penn. ST. 81;
State Lane, GA Mo. $40, 1884,
State a. Kagore, 70 Mo. 546
Mccoy q. State ~ Tex. App. Ais.
There of the contrary from Ohio North Carolina
and some other states.
Counsel for the defense cited his side Hopt Utah. 10 e.
S. 574 1sS) But here the conviction for murder
aside because the Judge had in charging the jury said that the
murder by whomsoever committed atrocos and asardy
and by the of Utah the charge the
jury respect matters of fact and this
comment on the facts Counsel also say that the case of Spa
between murder and mansaugher there being degrees of
murder the u S. But think the principle the
both murder in the second degree and manaughter being
homcdes OF lesser degree OF enormy than murder IN the
first degree We do any difference between saying that
the jury find the degree of murder and saying that the
jury may under Indictment for murder manaughter
der verdict of mansaugher of either of three degrees las
the facts proved will warrant
We therefore overrule this exception.
Subdivision of exception o. Here counsel for defense OBJ
ect the courts charge that the jury if they believed that
Iosepa murdered Dr. Smith with deliberate premedtated malice
afoethough, and that Kapea present aiding abeng
encouraging the murder should convict kaea of murder IN
the first degree The language of the above This
objected being nappcabe the though stating
the law correctly careful of the evidence shows that
though Kapeas defense alb he tesfyng that he
stayed at Paupaus house that Friday evening he gave
testimony the effect that Ioepa and Johnny left the
house that night but where they he did know and
they did until shortly before the officers came there
and gave also testimony tending show that the pistol
which used in the murder Iosepa and not his and that
Iosepa and not he hid it in the stonewall
Though the defense did upon the jury the theory
that oepa did the killing there enough in the to make
improper for the charge that if the believed
that Ioepa did the killing, Kapea present aiding and
abetng Iosepa he was equally guilty.
Exception % was not pressed
Exception "a to the courts refusal grant trial
the ground that the verdict contrary to the evidence &C.
already considered.
Exception 25 1t appears by affidavit that the verdict in this
returned into until 2:45 o'clock p. of
November 26h last which the last day but of the
Tue statute Sec 6S5 page of the Penal Laws ed 1897
pebe that all where the law awards the punishment
of DEATH there shall always intervene at least hours
between the conviction and the sentence There did not
foryeght hours of the Counsel for prosecution Deputy
Kinney heupon moved the court to suspend
the rendition of until the OF the court which
motion granted and pronounced until the
next term
Exception 26 is to the pursued and counsel for
defense maintain that there not remaining foreght
hours between verdict and the legal termination of the term
mstrial resulted. think followed the proper
,Eo dartst