The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-06-04

Nineteen Jurors Examined
The Line of Questions
Asked.

shortly after three o'clock yesterday
afternoon in Judge Robinson's court.
Nineteen men in all were examined on
| their voir dire, six of them being chal-
| lenged peremptorily and one for cause.
AS soon as the jury was secured an
adjournment was taken to 10 o'clock
! this morning when the hearing of evil
dence will begin.
| There was delay of nearly an hour
| in beginning the case caused by the
| fact that Col. Jones, the stenograp her,
was on the witness stand in an eject
ment suit in Judge De Bolts court.
As soon as the roll of the jurors was
called. Frank Thompson, in reply to
question by Judge Robinson, said
that the defendant Lee Let was ready,
and Deputy Attorney General Larnach
for the Territory answered ready.
Twelve men were called into the jury
box, and Mr.. Larnach very concisely
told them that in this case the indict-
ment charges Lee Let with bribing or
trying to bribe Chief of Detectives A.
P Taylor. He then began the examin-
alton of the jurors, Frank Godfrey be-
ing the first man questioned Mr.. Lar
mach asked the jurors as to their ac-
attorney. and if the relation of attor-
ney and client existed or had existed,
and generally whether the juror be-
lieved he could give a fair and and
impartial trial.
Thompson's questions were as to the
Jurors acquaintance with Larnach and
Sutton, who are conducting the pros
ecution. with A. P. Taylor, Chief of
Detectives, and with r. O. Matheson
and H NJ Ayres, two of the witnesses
in the case. He asked if in arriving
at a verdict, there would necessarily
be placed on the present police admin
istration the seal of approval, or upon
the preceding administration the seal
of disapproval, if that would influence
them To this Larnach objected as be-
ing irrelevant, but Judge Robinson
overruled the objection.
Thompson asked if jurors had any
prejudice against Chinese, or had opin-
ions as to whether Chinese were more
prone to tell the truth or otherwise
than whites. E. H. Lewis said he hau
and was excused for cause. Mr..
Thompson asked if jurors would give
the same weight or credence to the
testimony of a Chinese as they would
to a white man under the same condi-
tions. Mr.. Larnach objected to this
as being impossible for a juror to say
in advance what weight or credence he
would give to the testimony of any
witness as he must have the whole or
the witness testimony, his demeanor
and all other circumstances before him
before he could say what weight or
credence he would give to the testi-
mony. Thompson cited a case from
California where that form of ques-
ton was allowed. But Judge Robin
son sustained the objection holding
that the Juror could be asked as to
he would give the same con-
to the testimony of Chi /
naman as to white, but not as to |
whether he would give the same weight |
or eredence.
With another juror Thompson, hold |
ing up an Advertiser, asked him if he |
recalled eading a particular article |
the Lee Let case which APP
peared in 1t. To this I4arnach object
ed. on the ground that the juror had |
already stated that he had read the |
articles in the Advertiser but that they |
would not affect his verdict. Thomp-
son argued that he had a right to in
1uire into the mind of the juror to
earn whether or not he had been in
1uenced by his reading Independent OF
whether the juror was conscious OF
such influence or not. He said that
here had been more than forty articles
IN the subject of Lee Let published
n the Advertiser. Mr., Larnach OBJ
ected that the question was not what
he Advertiser had said, but whether
Lee Let had sought to bride Chief of
Taylor as he was charged
with having done. Judge Robinson
the objection and refused to
allow the question. Thompson through |
1ut continued references to the Ad-
yertiser, and it's attitude He asked
f it should appear that certain arti-
lies were written by A. P. Taylor if
t would affect the jurors verdict.
When this policy became obvious, Mr..
Larnach began asking jurors as to
heir views of the credibility of news
Oapermen, putting his question in this
orm:
Should it be nessary to call as wit
1esses in this case newspapermen,
would you give their testimony the
same consideration that you would
1ther Witnesses"
Twelve men having been found who
m their oaths said that they would
liscredit neither newspapermen nor
because of their occupation |
n the one case, or their color in the
,ther, they were sworn to try the is
sues. They are:
Robert Bemrose, Edwin Benner, ]. ].
Egan, William A. Hall, c. j. Ludwig
sen, Thomas Mclean. Jacob Orden-
stein, Charles P. Osborne. John Pada-
zen Jr., Frank ]. Robello, J. ]. Sulli-
van and Fred Turrill.
Judge Robinson gave the jury the
usual admonition not to discuss the
,ase with others or to let others dis
,uss the case with them and dismissed
hem for the day.
The taking of testimony will pro-
,eed this morning.
Z - - ~ y y - - ~ ~ y .4&Ra nsI&
enough evidence to warrant an indict-
nent they will return a no bill I do
lot consider that the proper course
vas pursued in having Mr.. Breckons
lrrested on a bench warrant and
gain ask the court to allow the nolle
)roSeQui"