The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-07-20
RIOT JURY Is
DISCHARGED
Six Men Hold Out for the
AcquittaI OF the
Japanese.

These are the men who voted to ae-
quit the ten Japanese rioters, despite
the evidence of guilt that was present
ed before them in Judge Robinson s
department of the Circuit Court:
J. S. Azevedo, Albert Ludlof, George
E. Bruins, William f. Buckle, Moreno
Hull, Daniel Fl. Voeller.
The jurors voting for the conviction
of the rioters were William L. Austin,
Frederick Goudie, George Harbottle,
John Jones, John Legros and Fritz
Meyers.
Hopelessly divided and with no pos
sibility of reaching verdict, the jury
in the Waipahu riot case was discharg-
ed by Judge Robinson yesterday after
every effort had been made to convince
the members of the jury that it was
their duty to reach a conscientious de-
cision if it was within the bounds of
possibility. But even compromise
verdict was not to be had from the
jury, which had been assimilating the
evidence in the trial during a period
of sixteen days.
That the merits of the case were
resolutely east aside by several of the
jurors was plainly evident from ex-
pressions that were heard from the jury
room during the latter portion Of the
deliberations From the driveway in
front of the Judiciary building was
heard the following remark, repeated
frequently by two of the jurors who
had sworn that they had no bias or
prejudice when they were accepted to
sit in il7dumpnf an the ease.
"To .. with the Plant
ers' Association, | don't care 49,.
for the plantations anyway"
This is what Attorney Lightfoot
must have had in mind. yesterday when
in the course of asking for the dis
charge of the jury he referred to
ssthese halls resounding with the argu-
ments and rows and scraps.
Effort at Secrecy.
Before their discharge yesterday the
Jurors voting for the acquittal of the
japanese made every effort to assure
the secrecy of their balloting and an
agreement was entered into that the
names of the men voting for the ac-
quittal of the rioters would not be
divulged.
Except for Juryman Daniel FL. Voel-
Ter joining the men casting their votes
| for aequittal, there was no change In
| the balloting from the time the jury
was locked up at six minutes past
| four O'Clock on Saturday afternoon.
! 1t has been stated that the reason that
| Voeller changed his vote was because
| he chafed under the fact that the
| Judge Robinson insisted on further
| deliberations after Foreman Goudie de-
| clared that there was no possibility of
even compromise verdict being
reach he'd.
The attorneys for the prosecution
were naturally disappointed in the out
come of the trial while Lightfoot and
his clients were jubilant over the
| failure of the jury TO reach verdict
| It was the common opinion among
| those who had been present in court
and listened to the evidence that was
| presented by the prosecution and the
defense set up by Lightfoot, that a
verdict Of guilty would be returned for
at least the majority of the defendants
within the course of an hour. The
news of the division of the jury was
| received with establishment, even the
| japanese coneeding that at least some
| OF the men whose partic patton in tn;
disorder at Waipahu On June seemed
TO be shown beyond the possibility of
doubt would be adjudged guilty.
| During the deliberations of the jury
yesterday request was made tor the
transcript of the evidence in .ha ease
| and this was allowed by Judge Rob n.
son, it being stated yesterday that the
| evidence on an important point in the
case was found 10 controvert the con.
tention raised by the jurors favoring
aequittal.
Verdict Is Urged.
At O'Clock yesterday morning the
| jury was called into court and the pro-
| ceedings were in full as follows
Judge Robinson-You have not ar.
rived at a verdict, Mr.. Goudies
Foreman Goudie-We have not ar
rived at verdict and If is impossi-
BILE for this jury TO arrive at verdict
| in this case.
Judge Robinson-We1l. gentlemen.
| this case has taken sixteen days in
| the trial. and it has taken ten hours
to present the respective sides during
the argument and it seems TO me that
| some agreement should be reached. OF
course. failure to agree results in moth
| ing. concludes nothing, it terminates
nothing, the ease will have TO be tried
| anew What greater amount of in
| formation. what more evidence could
| be presented to new jury, twelve
| men selected at later trial of this
| ease. They would not be more in.
| telligent than you, surely it is your
| duty to arrive at verdict. and in