The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-07-18
RIOT JURY
IS LOCKED UP
lContlnuea From Page one.l


A verdict can not be received today,
but if a verdict is agreed upon a seal
ed verdict can be placed in the hands
of the bailiff, and the members of the
jury viii then secure their release, ipso
facto.
The jury is composed of >. s. Aze-
vedo, William L. Austin, William f.
Buckle, George E. Bruins, Frederick
Goudie, George Harbottle, Moreno
Hull, John Jones, John A. Legros, AL
bert Ludloff, Fritz Meyers, and Daniel
III. Voeller.
: Plain intimation that tampering with
the jury had been attempted was made
by Mr.. Kinney for the prosecution be-
fore he began his closing argument in
the riot trial yesterday. There had
been a rumor circulated to the effect
that something of surprise would be
presented by the prosecution in the
closing hours of the trial, and that it
would be IN connection with some at
tempt that had been made upon the in
tegrity of the jury.
Kinney's Statement.
The statement made by Mr.. Kinney,
involving the name of Mr.. Robert Boyd,
was in full as follows:
Mr.. Kinney. Before proceeding with
my reply I desire to be heard on a
question of privilege. It has come to
my attention from source that
could not disregard that the defense
had engaged Mr.. Robert Boyd to as
sist the defense in this case, Mr.. Boyd
being engaged after the jury had been
impaneled and after it was apparent
that cousin of Mr.. Boyd was ON the
jury. AS / say, the information came
from such a source that / could not
disregard it, and / felt that it was due
to the defense and to myself as well
that ] should call the attention of the
Court to this matter and Mr.. Lightfoot,
and to ask Mr.. Lightfoot if there is any
IF the statement is true or not.
Mr.. Lightfoot. | will be sworn and
you can ask me and / will make my re-
ply under oath.
Mr.. Kinney. I will take your state
ment as an officer of the court.
Mr.. Lightfoot. In this prosecution
l am absolutely alone, with the assist
ance of my one stenographer, such as
sistance as my sons have been able to
and with the assistance of Mr.. Negoro
and Mr.. Maxine. / don t know Mr..
Boyd-that is, | don It attach Mr..
Boyd's name to any individual / may
know the gentleman very well, but
don t at this time place the name as
Mr.. Boyd. But whoever Mr.. Boyd may
be, whether / know him or don t know
him, he has absolutely nothing to do
with this case, nor is there any other
assistance, directly or Indirectly, than
those ] have mentioned, either for pay
or otherwise, connected with the de-
Tense of this case, and / will make the
same statement under oath if so re-
CURED
Mr. Kinney. I don t call for it.
That was all the reference made to
the alleged activity of Robert Boyd,
but it is understood that the question
will receive further consideration at
the hands of the officers of the prose
eution and that the statement BIZ Mr..
Kinney was not the last that will be
heard of it.
Attorney Lightfoot for the defense
promised that he would be brief when
he began his argument before the jury
Il lAddN Dut MS WOfOS were not
restricted when he entered into his yer,
sion of the actions of the defendants
at Waipahu on June s. He occupied
the court session during the morning
hours from ten o'clock until noon and
then resumed at two o'cloek.
The argument of Lightfoot yesterday
ran in about the same vein as it did
Friday. ridieuling the statements of the
witnesses for the prosecution and in
sisting that the defendants Were not
guilty of the crime of riot. According
to his argument, the prosecution had
failed TO show that tumult existed
at Waipahu on June s. In connection
with Jotaro Mikawa, one of the then
defendants, Lightfoot declared that il
would have been impossible for Mi
kawa to have participated in the riot
because he was in the custody of the
officers and as a consequence "eou1d
not riot -
Mastery Summary.
Mr.. Kinney's closing argument wa;
brief and presented mastery sum