The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-04-23
my hands on it. .
Q.-~can you produce il

!
Ar can. Here it is.
The High Sheriff suited the action
o the word by bringing from his pock-
1t the tell-tale collar. 1t was much
stained with blood and showed the
deadly perroration wel.-defined.
DR.. j. T. Mcdonald was the previous
witness, testifying that gunshot |
wound. most probably produced by a |
pistol bullet, had caused Mahelona' |
death. Probably the vertebral column
or a cord thereof had been injured, but
not desiring to mutilate the body fur
Their than necessary to satisfy himself
of the cause OF death he had not re-
moved any of the spinal cord The
witness refused to give expert testi-
mony upon calibers of bullets on cross
examination, beyond stating what he
believed in a general way from his ex-
perience with gunshot wounds. He
stated that it was possible, or even
probable for strong man, TO engage
in an intense physical struggle for
few minutes after receiving such
wound as he understood Maheiona re-
ceived. This part of his testimony
bore upon what young Clark had testi-
fed to. namely. that when he ran up
to Mahelona and the Chinaman after
hearing pistol report the two men
were staggering around, the policeman
gripping his prisoners collar, and that
after he (Clarl) had disarmed the
chinaman of a pistol and grasped him
about the neck Mahelona still held on
with one hand and fired four shots, one
of which went through Clark's arm.
Charles K. Clark, who was with Ma
helona at his death. gave exceedingly
important and interesting evidence.
He told a story as straight as die"
and was never swerved from his mar
rative by the many legal objections
with which he was interrupted. These
were. to his repeating of conversations
and stating of conclusions from given
facts in answering questions, Mr.. ASH
for7,s cross-exsmination of this young
Hawaiian witness. who testified in goou
English. did not produce the slightest
variation in his original story. Ciarks
VARYING tone, responsive to the man
ner of the different questioners, caused
n,pcb amusement to the court, jurors
and spectators. Undergraduates pitcn-
ed in high key We're echoed as to tne
particular note of the, gamut touched
nv the questioner, while in response to
tba mild tones of Judge De Bolt the
| witness .cooed'' his answers as gently
as the sucking dove" OF Bottom ;
speech in Midsummer Nights Dream, :
when the prosecution had rested Mr..
Ashford moved that the indictment be
dismissed because it was signed by Z
q. peters. Deputy Attorney General,
ana there was mo such officer known
to the law"
| Judge De Bolt promptly denied the
motion. when Mr.. Ashford immediately
moved that Mr.. Peters be not permitted
10 proceed further with the prosecu-
+;on for the same reason as stated II
the former motion. This was as prompt
" denied by the court.
chats the same old story as was
snrung on me in Maui, Attorney "
! >, pu,1i,,s whispered to an Advertiser
reporter.
/ Arthur Fullerton Doak. manager o
the star Dairy, Kahauiki, was CAMEO
nv Mr.. Ashford. who declined to max
| an opening statement to the jury
/ witness testified he had employed tn
defendant two and half years an
found him willing worker and no
| quarrelsome.
| Judge De Bolt did not want to al
NIT individual testimony as to chaf
acter deeming it altogether irregular
but finally allowed the examination
proceed.
Mr.. Ashford. fnsdrawing distinctio
hatween character" and reputation
: the endeavor to explain that tn
r,,e cited against him referred only
reputation. caused general laugn's
when he said
.sT should not like to have my cnal
acter Judged by my reputation
On cross-examination witness sai
50 never knew how defendant spent n
evenings. whether in chicken steam
~ not and ultimately admitted
lknew nothing of his character beyor
+ha traits mentioned in his examine
ZION in chief-that he worked wen
! and twas not quarrelsome.
80, NJ CroeSrs m