The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1905-01-31
DAY SPENT
IN WRAAGLE.
Limit on Evidence
In Murder
Trial.
Testimony Upon Killing
Of Mrs. Parmenter
Tabued.

All day long of yesterdays court
session. in the trial of e. NJ. Jones for
murder. was occupied in arguing
point of law upon the admissbility of
evidence. The immediate question on
which the wrangle took place was put
to Mrs Marcus Parmenter on Satur-
day. 1t related to what the witness
saw. within fifteen minutes after the
shooting of Mrs. Sarah Parmenter and
Mrs. Linda K. Jones, when witness
was on the premises of G. w. r. King. |
adjacent to the Parmenter home. The
intention of the prosecution was to
show that the late Mrs. Parmenter had
also been shot.
Mr.. Dunno presented long series
of grounds for objecting TO the pro-
posed evidence as immaterial, ir-
relevant and incompetent After he
had argued long, Deputy Attorney
General Peters replied at length. An
immense weight of authorities on eth
err side of the dispute was carried from
the law library and piled in front of
the battling lawyers, from which they
adduced case after case to buttress
their respective contentious.
Judge Robinson sustained the objec-
ton but denied motion to strike out
the evidence already given by Mrs. Par
menter relating to her hearing her
mother-in-law, the late Mrs. Parmen-
ter. say to the defendant, Pau, Eddy"
also her hearing of call for help and
of the reports of the pistol. Mr.. Rob-
ertson noted an exception to denial of
the motion to strike out
By this time it was five minutes to
p. m. and the attorneys were tired.
Therefore the trial was continued I'M
til 10 a. m. today.
Juror Medeiros, as the jury were
about to be dismissed for the day with
the admonition to avoid discussion OF
the case with others and each other,
asked If they We're ito understand that
the objection was sustained"
Inc court the lhil
the matter was one entirely belonging
to the court, inferentially making the
jury wise to the fact that their at
tention was necessary only to such
evidence as was admitted.
THE TESLA LIBEL CASE.
The trial of f. j. Tesla, editor and
proprietor of the Independent, for
criminal libel committed against w. G..
Smith was begun yesterday afternoon,
after a special venire of Jurors had
been returned to complete the panel
following several peremptory chal-
lenges.
After the evidence of the complain
ing witness, l.. d. Timmons of the In
\, dependent staff on April last and L.
Ut. Kenake of the postoffice had been
taken, copy of the paper containing
the alleged libel having been filed as
an exhibit, the prosecution rested.
Mr.. Stewart, counsel for the defend
ant with Carlo Long associate, moved
for a directed verdict of acuuittal on
the grounds that publication had not
been proved, that the obnoxious article
was not libelous under the definition
of the statute and that it had not beer
shown that the article had prejudiced
or injured the complaining witness IL
the eyes of the community.
Attorney General Andrews objected
to the motion relating to the nature
and effect of the article because thos'
points had been already ruled agains
the defendant on demurrer. AS to pub
LEGATION he believed he had ampl,
proved the case, but If the court helC
otherwise he would ask leave to re
open the case for the prosecution to pu
on more evidence.
Judge De Bolt sustained the Attor
ney Generals objections except as t.
publication, on which he considered
the prosecution should have at leas
one disinterested witness who had rea,
the article on its appearance. III
granted the motion to reopen the cas-
for the prosecution. the defense notin
an exception.
e. C. Peters was called and testifie
that he read the article on the after
noon of its appearance in copy @
the Independent delivered at the AT
torney Generals office, where the pape
was regularly taken though witnes
could not say whether it was paid 70
or not lhls was TOUR OF nVe Gays pe
fore his attention was called to tn
article officially as basis for prose
cution.
A. NJ. Brown, former High Sheriff
testified that he read the article o
the date of its original publication. TIL
paper was received regularly at I'll
High Sheriffs Office and his readin
of the article was not connected wit
any legal proceedings.
The prosecution again rested and,
being close TO the regular hour Il
adjournment. the trial was continue
until this morning. No attempt WI
made to even assert the truth of TIE
ta's statements.