The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-08-07
SELF-DEFENSE.

Exception 30 is to the verdict on the
ground that it 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
the defendant took the stand in his
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.
LIQUOR IN JURY ROOM.
During the evening just mentioned
[between Sept. 4 and 5, 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 and
other purposesl some of the members
of the jury drank beer, not exceeding
two glasses each, furnished by one of
their number. No evidence was ad-
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 ver-
dict. While the use of intoxicating
liquor by a jury during the trial of
capital case, except in instances of alb
solute necessity Is deserving OF severe
censure and condemnation, such use Is
not of 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 material
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 II 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 duoted.1
AMENDMENTS PROPER.
The opinion finds no cause for at
tributing error to the trial court in its
causing the clerks minutes to be
amended where they were defective.
mot only was 1t competent for the
trial court to make its record conform
to the facts but 1t was it's duty to do
So" the opinion quotes authorities for
holding.
CONCLUSION.
The opinion concludes thus:
Every one OF the twenty-five instruc-
tons requested by the defendant was
given, with an amendment to one only,
and that a correct amendment. No ex-
ception was noted to any part of the
charge.
The exceptions are overruled.
Attorney General Andrews and w.
s. Fleming for the prosecution; +. C.
Peters and E. A. Douthitt for the de-
PENDANT.