The Hawaiian gazette., 1905-01-27
JURY
IN SIGHT

1t is easily probable that a Jury for
the Jones murder trial will be obtained
today. Three jurors passed examina-
ton for cause yesterday, that number
of challenges having been exercised
But two peremptory challenges remain,
both for the defence. Eleven Jurors
passed for cause are seated and third
special venire for jurors, containing
fifteen names, Is returnable at 10
o'clock this morning. Therefore equal
progress today to that made yesterday
will secure jury.
Those challenged yesterday were Ed
win X. Fernandez by the prosecution
and ]. e. Goeas and Harry Rivers for
the defence.
one of the crucial questions put by
the defendants counsel is this in sub
stance:
IF, after hearing the evidence, you
have a reasonable doubt whether the
defendant was insane on the 23d of
August, 1903, when it is alleged he MUIR
dered Linda X. Jones, and the court
instructs you that the prosecution must
prove beyond reasonable doubt that
he was sane, would you find him not
guilty?"
There were some protracted contests
In the examinations for cause yester-
day. That of Edwin X. Fernandez oc-
cupied the greater portion of the morn
ing session. Deputy Attorney General
Peters challenged him for cause at
three different stages, but the court
finally passed him, and Mr. Peters, in
the afternoon exercised the Territory's
sixth and last challenge to retire Mr..
Fernandez. 1t is odd to note that an
other Fernandez failed to pass later,
for fixed opinion he held, and that
there are two or three of the name Fer
nandez in the special venire return
able this morning.
Two of the jurors accepted for cause
by both sides probably made first and
second records for speedy passing,
these being Thee. Bauman and Chas.
Duisenberg. These men avoided the
exhaustive psychological ordeal that
many others underwent. They did this
by answering questions with yes and
no for the most part, instead of lay
ing themselves open to fierce inquisi-
ton by giving their views on fine tech
| hiNoi poiiltS. DUH hutsb
however, had the advantage over most
} of the other jurors in knowing little
about the case. neither of them having
been in Honolulu on the date of the
tragedy.
ONE DOLLAR FOR GENEAU.
Edward Geneau, convicted on Mon
day night of manslaughter in the third
} degree, with strong appeal from the
jury for clemency. was sentenced by
Judge De Bolt yesterday morning to
pay a fine of one dollar and costs.
} There was demonstration never be-
fore paralleled In a Hawaiian court of
justice upon the delivery of sentence.
An outburst of applause came from the
spectators which lasted for some min
utes. M. J. Bissell, one OF the jurors
who found the verdict, advanced to the
desk and paid the fine, which defend
ants counsel capped with a check for
the costs. Amidst these formalities
and informaltes Geneau was sur
rounded by bluejacketed comrades of
the navy, with officers and others, who
fairly smothered him with congratulate
tons as they shook hands with him and
! led him away in triumph.
! Mr.. Douthitt opened the proceedings
with an argument for lenient sem
tence in accord with the request of the
| jury. Geneau's confinement for eight
months awaiting trial was mentioned,
with reference to his acute mental
suffering from having been within
hearing of two executions in that peri
3D. Counsel produced letter from
Was hington stating that sentence to
Imprisonment would result in Geneau's
hishonorable discharge and prevention
of his ever again enlisting in the navy.
J AttorneXrGeneral Andrews said a
man had been killed, neither in self
defense nor a fight. but deliberately.
After he had tried to view the case in
every possible light 1t still seemed to
him that, IL Geneau was dismissed with
a fine, human life would be cheapened
and fearful precedent be established.
! With regard to an order from the Navy
Department proper representations he
had no doubt would cause 1t to be re-
voked. 1t would be a mockery OF JUS
tice II fine were imposed which would
be paid by subscription.
Judge De Bolt spoke at some length.
The defendant had made favorable
impression on the court, as a man trne
and honorable. But for his unsortu-
nate use Of liquor and armiag himself
with deadly weapon, the defendant
would not have been in such position.
Though the court thought the jury.
considering their oath and the evidence,
might have acquitted the man. he did
not criticize them. The defendant was
charged with very heinous offensc,
and some of the jury might have be-
lieved he had knowledge of what lie