The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-05-10
THE JURR REPLIES.
The Evidence In the Sodsrgren
Case Reviewed by Those
Who Heard Il.

been given TO the public, the undVrsisn-
ed members OF that jury would like TO
make the following statement;
MIR Baird in his speech challenged the
good fa,th OF the jury In aoquitting the
defendant and charged that IL was due,
in part at least to hostility to the Unit
ed states Government In other words,
he assailcd their integrity as Jurors and
their loyalty az citizens.
This official and deliberate condemna-
tion must have rested entirely upon tho
one case where Sodergren was acquitted;
for but three other cases were tried be-
fore the jury. In two. one OF them being
another case against this same defend
ant Sodergren, the jury convicted, and
in the third where they acquitted, MIR.
Dunno, who prosecuted, assured several
of the Jurors personally that he believed
they had rendered IA proper verdict We
thus have the prosecuting attorney, art
er three verdicts that met the approval
of the prosecution. and which consttut-
ed the first three jury cases that were
tried by the Federal Court In this coun-
try because he lost he fourth. announcing
officially and in cold blood Qor the YER
dict had been rendered the night pre-
yious) that lit seemed for the present at
least that 1t was absolutely worse than
useless to have a conviction in case
where the United States was prosecu-
tor" Following this up, Mr.. Baird made
a vicious attack on the characters of the
jury. refused further to prosecute before
them, released the defendant next to be
tried, and finally wound up by causing
the dismissal of the entire panel, and
abruptly closed the term.
No specific accusation of misconduct
against the jury was made, nor was any
act outside of the verdict of acquittal
charged as improper. And II such accu-
sation is made, the jury declare 1t utter
and bad faith is evidently based upon
and bald faith Is evidently based upon
the differences the prosecuting attorney
saw fit to draw from the single fact
that the jury had acquitted the defend
ant and this demonstrates what
slight barrier remains to protect jur-
or in the discharge of his official duties
from a personal assault upon his char
acter and unenviabe notoriety through
out the Territory, in serving wherever
Mr.. Baird is concerned.
Coming to the case complained OF, the
jury looked at it. briefly speaking, this
way: The defendant was charged with
six separate assaults upon the cabin boy,
aged is years, at different intervals dur
ing the voyage from Newcastle to Ho-
nolulu. The prosecution abandoned two
of the counts during the trial and of the
remaining four, three were charged as
happening the second day out and the
fourth about three weeks thereafter. The
sole eye-witnesses to these assaults, ac-
cordng to the cabin boys statement,
then in the Territory, were the defend
ant and first mate. These two denied
the charge in toto. The prosecution also
introduced in Confederation of the charge
the evidence of five or six of the crew,
who swore that at different times dur
ing the voyage, while located mostly at
the wheel alone and by themselves they
heard outcries from the cabin and the
sounds of blows; the cabin boy and the
captain at the time supposed to be be-
low. No dates or times were given with
any certainty for any of these outcries;
nor was any one of such occurrences
corroborated by a second witness; nor
were these outcries connected with the
time or occasion of any one of the as
saults charged in the indictment. The
prosecution also introduced the evidence
of two OF the same witnesses who had
testified to the outcries, to the effect
that the prosecuting witness had twice
exhibited black and blue marks on his
back.
The jury were satisfied from the evil
dence and the demeanor and the action
of the witnesses that the cabin boy and
crew had grossly exaggerated their evil
dence: that the story of the boy as told
was inherently improbable, and that the
crew had 1t in for the captain, and show
ed a Willingness to depart from the truth
and did depart from the truth in their
attempt to secure a conviction. The cap
tain and both officers deny the entire
case of the prosecution. and the evidence
of George II. Robertson of Brewer IL Co,
Mr.. Fred. Whitney of Irwin * Co., Cap
tain Cutler, Captain Rider and the for
mer cabin boy and steward were intro
duced for the defendant. proving that the
defendant had been running to this port
between fifteen and twenty years and
that his reputation as a peaceable and
quiet man had never been questioned
and If defendant had been man such
as witnesses for the prosecution had at
tempted to make out, these witnesses for
the defendant would have heard or
known of 1t in the intimate relations
they had sustained toward the defendant
The captain testified he had never been
under arrest before in his life, then be-
Ing 40 years Of age. and haying follow
ed the sea most of that time.
The cabin boy testified specifically TO
three assaults on the second day out,
while he was seasick, giving time OF day,
place and circumstances of each assault.
But later on in his evidence he stated
that he was assaulted the second day out
but could not remember the time of day,
whether morning or afternoon, nor could
he state how or why the assault came
about, thus contrad!cting the evidence
first given by him circumstantially set
ting forth three assaults on the day in
question.
The evidence OF the captain and officers
that for some three days out the prose-
cutting witness was seasick and was not
able TO work and did not work and did
not come in contact with the captain
at all, or have a chance TO be assaulted.
made strong impression on the minds
OF the jury as being inherently far more
probable than the story OF the cabin boy
that though on his first voyage to sea
and seasick, he had washed out the cab
IN, polished the brass work, waited on
the table, etc, during that period, ana
Tor being seasick aud slow was unmerci. f,
iully beaten by the defendant.
The above simply serves 10 illustrate |
one out OF many phases OF the evidence, |
some favorable 10 ana some against the |
defendant but the net result was that |
the Jury entertained strong doubts as 10 I
TIE story presented by the prosecution
ana gave defendant the benefit OF the
doubt. as Instructed By the Court Ia do b