The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-08-05

ldI question ana Jnat tnefeupOn an ar
gument ensued between him and the
defendant on the So subject, Watson
standing on the head of the steps on
, the left side going up, leaning against
the railing and with both hands behind
his back, and Ferris standing one step
lower on the opposite side of the steps
and about four or five feet from Wat
son. that during the conversation,
which lasted only a few minutes, Ferris
said that Watson had called him a son
of a --- some days before, that Wat
son denied this, that Ferris repeated
his assertion and asked Watson, Did
you mean it?" That Watson at first
semained silent but, Ferris insistently
repeating the question, finally said,
| well, If l did call you a son of a
- I didn't mean it," that without
warning Ferris Immediately dealt
Watson, who was still standing in the
| position already described, a heavy
blow on the left side in the region of
the chest: that Watson staggered,
walked back a few steps towards the
body of the house and then forward
again and fell, one Daniel Sith catch
ing him as he fell blood issuing from
a wound in WasOn's left side and from
his mouth; that a few moments later
Watson was dead; that Immediately
after the assault Ferris left the spot
and a few moments later the premises
and ran away and was not found al
though diligent search was made for
him by the police. until the next day;
that the wound was caused by a knife
welded by Ferris and that Watson's
death was caused by the wound so in
/ tiicted and was not due to any other
cause; and that about eight days prior
to the date of the assault Ferris, point
ing to Watson who was some distance
away, had said to one Blackwell, a wit
ness for the prosecution, See that son
of a - 1 will fix him yet" Upon
the evidence then before it the jury
would have been justified in finding
that the killing was committed not in
the heat of passion but in cold blood
and with premeditated malice afore-
thought.
Exception 80 is to the verdict on the
ground that 1t is contrary to the law
and the evidence and the weight of the
evidence. This is sufficiently disposed
of by what is said concerning excep-
ton 2S. 1t may be added, however, that
own behalf and admitted that, at the
time and place already stated, he stab
bed John Watson, the deceased, with
knife similar to that introduced in
evidence by the prosecution. His claim
was that he did so in self-defense, that
during the conversation at the Meyers
house Watson had suddenly come to-
wards him and grabbed him by the
shirt bosom with his left hand tearing
the shirt, at the same time having his
right hand in his hip pocket, and that
as Watson took hold of him he, Ferris, |
thought his life was in danger, drew
the knife and dealt Watson the blow.
But the overwhelming weight of the
evidence was against the defendants
version of the occurrence. The evil |
dence was clearly sufficient to support
the verdict.
During the evening just mentioned
[between Sept. and 3, when the jury
occupied as a bedroom what is now
Judge De Bolts courtroom, and two or
three adjoining rooms. including Judge
Gears chambers, for lounging andi
other purposes some of the members |
of the jury drank beer, not exceeding |
two glasses each. furnished by one of |
their number. No evidence was ads i,
duced tending to show that any of the |
jurors became intoxicated or was I'M |
der the influence of the liquor so used |
and each of the jurors depOsed on oath |
that none of them was thus affected. |
The trial judge in overruling the mo- |
ton evidently found, and we think the |
finding was correct, that the use of |
the liquor did not affect the cOnsidera- |
ton of the case or influence the YER !
dict While the use of intoxicating |
liquor by a jury during the trial of a |
capital case, except in instances of abb
solute necessity. is deserving of severe |
censure and condemnation, such use is |
not in itself, where the liquor is not |
furnished by one of the parties to the |
cause, necessarily a ground for the |
granting of a new trial. The ma terial |
inquiry in such cases is whether the
defendant was prejudiced thereby, in
other words, whether the use was such
as to affect the mind of any of the
Jurors and thus deprive the defendant
OF the benefit of the condition of mind
of each and all of the jurors to which
he is entitled; and if it appears that the
defendant was not prejudiced, the YER
dict can not be reversed. This is the
modern view, shared in by the great
majority of courts. decisions of many
States are here quoted.l
STILL PURSUING CONVICTS.
Associated Press. Morning Service.
PLACERNILLE, Cal, August o.