Newspaper Page Text
Supplement to the C. Advertiser une P JL i J 9th I I'. i TV" r i if M n . . 1- - ' '" l A V -fti : !' f. IV V t I ; i n V j Hi i , v. r SPE ECKELS. (Concluded.) iaent. He beard tbe shot, fell over an other clerk aud they remained on the floor till the shooting was over. J. M. Renck saw tbe lady at tbe counter, heard the shooting, jumped on to the counter and heard Emerson shooting and saw him with a smoking pistol in his hund. Henry F. B. Blote contradicted his testimony that he- had given in the Police Court and 9et forth thit his memory improved with age. He did not ee Sprecktle till both shots had been tired aud De Young bad tumbled over a stool. E. K. Chapman heard a shot, could not realize what it was, and saw nothing till the whole a -fair was over. J. G. Chesley thought tbe first shot was from bombs and firecrackers, the result of electioneering rejoicing, but he afterwards lushed out to seize Spreck trU. BEOEEM BEOKAW. Edward A. Brokuw, u witness for the prosecution (who is well known in Hono lulu) bad sold bay to Spreckels & Co. aoiue years aga, and bad traveled up and down in the steamers with them. Spreck els whs ten or twelve feet behind De Young going into the office, but tbe door bad not closed, yet Spreckels bad to open- tbe door to get in. He followed Spreck els, and left when tbe crowd caiuo in. He could not recollect what business bt en gag d since yiving up tbe bay ba.-iiuess in 187fi, or what wages be earned running a threshing machine, though be afttrwnrds stated it was four dollars' a day. He then drove a team for tbe Capital Mills at SIC 50 a week, and subsequently went to Monterey, where he did nothing for a month. He next worked on a ranch at Gilioy, whence be was discharged after six mouths on account of a horse trude. Hh tbeu went to Sacrauieuto, next drove a hay wagon iu San Francisco, worked on a plantation at Maui for W. H. Bailey.weut to Honolulu, theiicw to Hawaii, rh e he was building a railroad, returned to San Francisco, whfie he engaged in tbe hay business for four months, and then made a fresh start for Honolulu. There he worked iu the dairy business for a time, tben drove tdauis for Mr. Graham. He then made several trips between tbe two pons dealiugin stock. Ho conversed with Mr. Douglas, tbe port Captain of the Spivckels' line of steamers, con cerning the case. He had bor rowed about $2"0 from a man by the name of Gainage; did ut know be was a detective. He had never been to Adolph Spreckels about tha case, but had seen him once. He once went to John Spreck els to get bis feelings towards witness, be cause he had testified against him. He had previously not testified in the case. Did not know that tbe money lent b;m by Gamage came from Do Young; had kuown Gamagtt a goo;T niauv years. Did not know that he was employed iu tbe case, yet Gamage told him that he was em ployed by De Y'onug. Had a conversa tion with Mr. Wilson, engineer of the Mariposa, about tbe case. Did not say anything about a man skipping aud $200. Went to the office with a draft for $25, which was paid by one of the clerks. Was talking to Johu D., and told him he would liko to see Adolph. Saw Adolph and told him what he knew, but did not care to testify in the case at all. This closed the case for the prosecution, aud a continuance was ordered till the following day, when Hall McAllister drew the attention of the Court to the fact that th prosecuting witness, M. H. DE TOCNO, WAS NOT CALLED. ' The attorney for the defense. Hall Mc Allister, quoted cases in support of the fact 'that the absence of the principal prosecuting witness threw upc-n the de fendant the burden of proving his inno cence. That the burden of proving rested upon the prosecution. The whole trans action should be shown whether to estab lish guilt or innocence. Mr. Highton quoted further cases in support of this view. Mr. Campbell, for the prosecution, cited cases on his side against calling De Young as a witness, and suggested that this should be done by the defense. The Court took the question under study until Friday, May 20tb, when THE COtTET DlCCIDKD As follows; ''I am convinced that it is in the discretion of the counsel for the peo ple to make him their witness or cot to do so, as they may ckct. It is sufficient, otherwise, that the witness be present in CourO so that the defense may have his evidence if required. This is well settled in the English authorities, aud is not at all at variance with the fixed doctrines of our Courts in this country. It is the province of the prosecuting officer, and not of the Court, to determine who shall be examined as witnesses on the part of the State. The defendant's counsel will therefore proceed, if they are ready.'' Mr. Taylor noted au exception to the ruling. THK RKASOX WHY. In the absence of Hall McAllister, through sickn&ss, Mr. Highton expressed his willingness and preference to continue the case for the defense. The Advkrtiseb is iu a position to give the leading argu ment of counsel iu full, which appears in strong contrast to the brief aud weak opening address of counsel for the prose cution, whose refusal to place their prin cipal witness on the fctand, fearing a se vere cross-examination and the eliciting of facts, prior to the shooting, which would tend materially to damage their cause in the eyes of the public, hu3 evoked con siderable comment and severe general con demnation at the hands of the people, who naturally are anxious to know what was hidden behind. If De Young were sum moned as u witness for the defense, he could not, of course, be subjected to the cross-examination necessary io elicit these main aud most important points. The ODening for the defense: ... fstr - !: t:.c . -j . u . o." ti. . . . c-nsi ..r ;c;.U..!it. At a tii; hut .try ot the law it wa. i;, f hi t. the iimin argument on his beba!f ; but our u-a.- ai d cjstotui. and. 'o .me extent, oui statutory pro vlsior.f. hive madea chr. zc in tne law tc a certain dejrreo in that it I. .Never theless, 1 deem it my duty, under the per inikSion of his Honor. t enter into tae opening of this case with some consider aoia decree of particularity. So far m the facts and tbe law upon which the de fendant relies here, it ia very necessary that they ahould be thoroughly understood as we proceed with the testimony itself. Mr. lilgbtoa said that tbe ordinary duty of counsel for the defense came home with peculiar force for tho reason that the pros ecution ot special counsel in his opening statement limited himself to a vindictive statement of tbe otteose without alluding to tbe rights tbe defendant possesses and a definition of the grades of crime di-ipus sionately. He referred tbe Court to twe authorities upon the opening of a crioina' case by the prosecution, extracts from wbich he read. The first case cited wa Prof rat on Jury Trials. Section 2Crj, pagt 2j6, in wbicb it was held that tbe prosecu tion should take special care in the opeiv lng statement o give all the fact ex pec ted to be proven. The next case cited win that of Garrison vs. Wilcoxsen, iltt Georgia, pags 151, to a similar effect Counsel tnen quoted the language of At torney-General Uman of South Carolina lc the celebrated Cab murder cane, in Feb ruary, lei. s to his duty as a procecutlnf attorney. Mr. Highton continued : "In the ordei of advocacy, in tbe excitement almost necessarily generated by the episodes of at Important case, it is often difficult even for tbe official representative of the State, wbohasno interest in tbe result beyond the faithful discharge of his duties to tbi public, to rostra n himself within the lim its prescribed by law. wbicb is so jealoui of any invasion of personal liberty that li hedges in the citizen, so to 8pek. with s multiplicity ot rules designed for his pro tection, and, through him. for tbe proteo tion of the community itself. How mucb more difficult, how almost Impossible it must be for private counsel, however ablt and conscientious, employed by individ uals. to whom only one result can bring any satisfaction, to hold themselves wlthto these salutary restrictions. An yet anomalous as their position may seem t be, unless they transcend these obliga ttons, they, too, like tbe District Attorney like His Honor upon tbe bench, like rou elves, gentlemen in the box, are BOUND UXDKB THEIR OATHS To see tbat no injustice is done to a de fendant charged with crime. Carefully refraining, tben, from any imputation Upon the particular gentlemen seioct J in this instance. I have no hesitation in say ' lag mat mo iaci mai .Hicoei 11. tie Voting is here, represented by bis own counsel in addition to the able ad vocate who olricial 'y appears for the people, is one element in ur defense, to this extent, that it entails pon you, gentlemen, the nicest di-criuu nation in weighing the facta a th?y ir.sy resent them. We cannot always and ef fectually guard ourselves against our own weaknesses, prejudices and manifold im perfections; but in you, gentlemen. boson to decide tbis case by reason of your in telligence and your impartiality, uncon nected with the parties ; taken from tho body of the people who constitute the Btate;the depositories of the law s it flows pure and unobstructod from the lips of his Honor upon the bench, and of the testimony delivered by the witui ss in you. gentlemen, we reoKnize a i nal arbiter to whom both sides may on dentiy look for justice." Counsel tben read tho Information in tbe case. The statutory de.inition of the crime alleged, Section 217 of the I'enal Code, was then read: "Kvery per.-on who assaults another, with intent to commit murder, is punishable by imprisonment in the .State Wlson not less than one nor more than fourteen years." "It results from the nature of this in formation," said counsel, "and from tho action of the statute upon which it is founded, and from the authorities with Which his Honor ia undoubtedly familiar, bearing upon the question, that in this ease, in order to sustain the charge which tbe Information makes, every ingredient of saurder except death must be proven, to justify conviction. Without stopping to read the authorities. I refer to two upoa (bat subject which are unusually clear and txpliclt, thecae ui! Smith vs. the State. ci Beorgia, 88. 90 and 91. and the cats of the People vs. Murat, 43 Cab. 2S1, and saaaci&llr at vatree 283 and N4.'k A COMiLETK DEFKHSB. After denning the crimes of murder aad manslaughter, oounsel continued : Had the prosecuting witness, eV the main prosecuting witness here, died trom the effects of tbe shooting of November 1, 1354. if the offense would only have been manslaughter, then an assault with intent to murder has not been proved in this case. In case of alleged homicide, moreover, end in a case like this, which is analogous to it in certain aspects, much testimony may be introduced to show whether tbe crime of murder in the first or second de gree was committed." In tbis connection counsel read from twenty-fourth California Reports, p. ). end said that malice could not be implied where it was shown that there was suf ficient provocation of a depraved heart. "It appears, tben. first, that to consti tute murder in tbe first degree, when no proof of express malice has been intro ducedand there it none hero malice can not be inplied. first, where there has been any considerable provocation, or second, when the circumstances attending the act do not show on the part cf the defendant both an abandoned and a malignant heart; that is, a heart brutal, inhuman, depraved, prone to violenoe with heat, out from the Terr love of cruelty, and destitute of the ordinary sympathies of human beings. " Second Tbat in murder of the second degree tbero is, first, an absence of irre sistible or overwhelming passion, which would reduce the offense to manslaugher, and, second, no sufficient proof of the com bined elements of willfulness, deliberation and premertitation neoessary to constitute murder In the first degree. If in this case all the elements of murder to wbicb I hare referred do not exist, so that it can bo distinctly brought within one or the other of the classes which have been enumerated, had the result of tho act com plained of been death, our defense to tbe very grave accusation madd by the in formation is oven now, at this moment, complete." ANT OBJECTION. When counsel referred to the testimony of the prosecutit n in the case, Mr. Camp bell objected to such reference and cited decisions of the Supreme Courtof thisState and sections of the Code to sustain bis ob jection. He claimed that the defense had no right to discuss tho evidence on behalf of the prosecution before evidence for the defense is in. Mr. Highton replied that the object was not to present an argument upon the tacts, but to state, tersely and briefly, those points ari-iing upon the testimony for tbe prosecution itself, which the coun sel for the defendant claim to enter into and form constituent parts of the defense. This is all we propose to do. We have no Ide of arguing the facts of the cane. The Court 1 do not perceive that there is much ditlerence between the position which you taUe to defend yourself and that stated by Judge l umpb-jll against it. Sir. Highton There ia tiii difference, if your Honor please; it is all the ditlerence between a risbt which the defendantos sesses, and a rij;ht whivli ho docs not possess. We have aright to say. if we are presenting a defense, for instance upon the ground ot telf defense, that there is a cer tain prop-.sifion which weclaim the prose cution itself to have cmtaUiohed, wbicb. as a matter of fact, is a constituent ele ment in that particular doiensc ; and when we state that we are only exerclsiriK the statutory right of presenting to the Court nd jury the precise points upon which the defense rests. Now. of course, as to whether wo are l iubt or wrong in our inference from Hie facts, that is auues ii.-.n to be uiiin-.au-ly decided by the jury, after an argument e.t upon them; bul we have a right to slate our poiiion.be iu-e. without stating It. the statement ot t'-e iefense would be incomplete and in- M ::rcnt. t'i.e Court Well. 1 with you would keep ' o-n . riiiciiicg the testimony as much ma i i - la. POSITION OF THF DEFENSE. .Mr. Highton I shall avoid it altogether, s r. I do not intend to criticise it in any i. y. I merely wish to et ite our position. 1 am not desiring at this time, and U i not the idea. to enter into a discus--.on of the credibility of witnesses, or the r. ;.riv weight of the different statements li.( h have been made upon the side of i!n- prosecution; but 1 wish to say, simply, s a proposition upon which the defendant here iciies, that we claim this, looking tm rho testimony for the prosecution as a whole, tbat it does not exclude the idea ihat tbe prosecuting witness. Michel H. de Young, in the Chronicle office, on the 1 tbof November, 1SS4. had a pistol in his rj. session, and tbat is ail we propose to ay upon that sub'ect. second That the testimony for the State that the defendant entered tbat oiflce. which was public and which he had perfect right to enter, in the usual way, nd with no apparent desire to provQks er Hi', ri-4- .. ii ii ,. CTUii.pnl ir the uclfn OUrt ;i:t .-o. &:id u '-li . t;r vciiiii.f argnni.-iii si. t.iij j . usually re'aruoii fcb.e i;i)D rlamo to tbe tU i.ot very remote d ri l iu ommence a difficulty, an-1 without any -"paralra for that r'irp se. except the m re fact of carrying a pistol, aud that his nd irr-sa or observation to Mr. I Young Mits respectful and cour; eons, and repealed before Mr. Le Vouch turned nucd. ihird We rely upon this proposition ;:iat the direction and course of the shot, -is Indicated by the wound". and in view of the distance bat ween Michel 11 de Young and the defsn'aot. scarcely offsred a pre sumption of e serious Intention u certainly cot of a delifct'rate cd preconceived inten tion upon tiie part or ibe defecdant, to tke liir. And tbtn we IcfoTm you that w shall prove that tha da.'ecdast followed Mi chel II. de tozr.g it to tbst office for peaceful expcsiuUt.cn tp n the course of the Chronicle toward b:s father and hj fathers family, scd that Le carried that purpose out so long Hi ne could do so with safety to h!rne:f ft.-.d to tbe ierci;eof common prudeme. Now under tbe amelioration cf tho law. which permits a deft-nc;ct 10 be a witness on his own behalf, the ate et-t u.frrenco of intent from a man's act i r.ow modified to this extent : tbst a defendant may now testify directly 10 his own inte:.iion; al- t tuough. if be fail to uo so. no inference agsict him on that ground coull be In- 1 duicd. Uut tbero are ! OT(7( R AXO IKftniOH 0"H;N"3ES I Included in a charge cf a.s suit to murder. ! h:ch tbe ! t,rir:y de.'ii.es; itie t.rst etng ausu.t i;l' deadly weapon. At common law. rta alt and bt'ery, which ' coatitine oce o:t1.90. at alio "a simple au:t, r er i-.ciuf.eJ in an a-ttult with an tctert to cotr-.Tl! murder, tiere, where balt-. ry atd tint re dl.tir.c nd sepa- . rate from each otr.fr. 1 robnb!y 1,0m are in- ; eluded ir. thi inforn.at ati. i Now I hara inaotiorril tho;e inferior ' graOe of crime emcai ed in ine informa tion, not as in:iyjrjg tbat the defendant "hy nonitnitte-i any ! ihsin, tor ve expect totabliNl ti e rigtt to a tvdict of not guVy of at.y r. of tr.te o-e:.cs, but to upp:y itf o: n,nt:pti -hi fc. aitf.ovglt it li ters into tiit no ene, it eetrc:s to me the prorcu'.ior. U-ulf t ul.t to hs ve c:iiniu nlcated. iht m i mion of RE AEON AB LB DOUBT Ia a criminal caee was then argued at length. Mr. Lloyd thereupon protested against counsel arguing points of law to the jury. Mr. Taylor Mr. Campbell obj'ects to our arguing the fact3 and Mr. Lloydto our ar guing the law. and tbat would reduce us to our arguing both, 1 presume. The Court Let the quotations be as brief as possible. Mr. Highton They have been brief. I have nothtopped to read authorities, and i the only onus that rests upon them is that i which results from the chronio lnterrup- I tion or the other side. The Court I will excuse the coonsel for their interruption with regard to the defi nition of reasonable doubt. 1 Mr. Highton I do not think It has over j been Improved upon. i The Court I never saw a man that un derstood it. It may do very well for a Boston jury, but it seems very diltlcult for jurors to understand it here. j Mr. Highton The definition of reason- ' able doubt. I suppose I may procesd with i reading it; I The Court Well, be very phcrt. ! Mr. Highton Keas'-imbie doubt is that : state of mind which, after entire compari son and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that con dition that they cannot eay they feel an abiding conviction of a moral certainty of , the truth of tbe charge. Authorities were cited in support of this definition. 1 Counsel hen took up j Til K SUBJECT OF INSANITY, It had devolved upon the Supreme Cudrt of this State, he stid. to bring tbe question vf maniiy out ot th-j chaotic state to which it hud fallen. The defen-e claims that there is no presumption - t in sanity in any particular form. It claims only ihe general principles which the law lays down. He drew a comparison be tween irresistible impfilse of the intellect and a moral inclination to commit crime, which he characterized as nioril insanity or criminal obliquity. and continuing, said: 'Of course the true rule for pro ecutions is that which 1 may perhaps venture to call passionless inquiry, calm, deliberate, judi cial investigation, unmixed with any de sire for personal revenge or ascendency, and dnperverted by any gratuitous and improper allusions to the wealth or influ ence of the pro eeuting witness, himself in this case not placed upon the stand, and the defendant or those with whom he is related or connected. If influen- a were to be considered here upon the facts which this defendant will be enabled to prove, I bould nerbans ak him t nmnr tv proprietor or a powerful journal with a young man of good life and chartcter. but with his dostiny to carve out amongst the rough conflicts which tha world will sup ply him in the future and see what pre sumptions would naturally arie from that consideration. Hut all such questions, no matter how suggestive, no matter where they originate, no matter how frequently they may be interi osed through the dex terity of counsel, have no suitable place in an American Court of Justice governed by law and facts, and not by demigogiam of chicanery. - " ' THE DEFENSE. "Now I will proceed with what, but for a little analysis and thought, would appear to be the most definite part of the defense, but these definite parts of the de fense, as they are often termed, although resting more completely upon speciflo facts, ere scarcely nwre important than the other parts of the defense, consisting of presumptions with which they are per sonally related and connected. "Ihave already said that we shall neg ative that we shall meet, answer and, I trust, overcome whatever case there may be for the prosecution; but beyond this we shall introduce testimony under the plea of not guilty, as it has been already de fined under my preceding observation, tending to establish two separate lines of affirmative defense n&melv: First, insanity, and second, seif-defense. I mention them in that order for the mere convenience of presentation and not aa giving to either of these de fenses any particular predominance over the other. Now. I have already spoken with, I trust, judicial frankness of tbe fact that on these lines of defense the burden of proof to the extent of establishing them by a mere preponderance of evidence, and not beyond, a reasonable doubt, is upon the defendant, excepting so far as these de fenses or any part of them arise out of the case already made for the State. The prosecution is here bound to prove a guilty intent, but there can be no guilty intent in en insane mind, whethpr temporarily or permanently insane. The very fact, if it should be established in any manner under the rules of law which will beuadminis tered here strictly and accurately by his Honor upon tho bcn h. that' at the par ticular moment of this shooting the de fendant here had what the law treats or considers when the facts prove it as an insane mind within a definition to which I shall almost immediately call your attention, would entitle him to an acquittal. ; Now, undoubtedly wher ever a defendant relies upon two lines of defence, such aa I have ventured to de scribe, it is claimed invariably on the part of the State that there is some degree of in consistency between them. In this case we shall probably iind th-U there is not necssariiy any inconsistency between these two lines of defense. Uut. as I have already stated, we are not here presenting any theory or hypothesis except that of not guilty, and we are simply exercising our right given to i:S by law, and which will bo fully conceded to us by the Court, of in troducing all matters of defense which we have. .ou must remember, gentlemen, tnat the testimony on our side has not yet been delivered. You have listened only to one side ot this case. We can anticipate the direction of the evidence bich we shall be enabled to introduce, but we cannot tell with precision what U will absolutely be. At this time we cau only etate what we under stand it will tend to prove, and it is the defendant's right, ana it is our duty as his counsel to put in all the testimony we have, and the law. which is sovereign over us all. provides that we can and shall in troduce evidence on every position which tbe facts tend to establish, and if insanity and self defense should conflict, which in tbis ease, as I have already intimated, they may not, the defendant is not evea to be prejudiced by that fact, if at the time of the act charged in this informa tion he was either insane or actinsc in self defense. In either of these views he is entitled to an acquittal, and the defendant himself cannot control the course of testi mony and is not responsible for it. That is in the hands of his counsel, who are bound to act upon ail the information they have received. 1 have shown, 1 think, clearly and Eerhaps more concisely tban at the first lush may appear, that under our system of law there is no such thing as a separate plea of either insanity or self defense; tbat either or both of these lines ot de fense come in under the general plea ot not guilty. It is THE ABSOLUTE. INALIENABLE RIO ITT Of a person accused of crime to introduce evidence of every relevant fact tending to establish his innocence in any lawful man ner, and in exercising th t right he is not to be deprived of tho full benefit of all the facts, because they might a; ply to two or more lines of defense, even though those lines of defense were, as they aae not in tfcjjTlta-pparently inconsistent with, ecJa I nther. I b-!tve you will be instructed that j if .Wt-ndaiit. w ben be shot at Michael It. Xte Venn?, was eitier acting la slf-defense or was limine- within tiie meaning of those terms, as t'aey will r-e explained to you by tbe Court, be is entitled to an acquittal, and tbat he la not to be prJudlced by tbe fact that h relies on both of those lines of de fense tinder bis plea of not guilty. Why, undr tbe existing state of the law ia this state in which we live,! where. In many rentcts, the law is in advance of many s t.tes cf the Union, and where it U certainly up to the highest level which bus ben adopted by the civilixed world, a defendant is even permitted to contradict bis own wit nesses, and is not bound bv their statements. I refer to sections 2,640 and 2,052 ot tee Code of Civil Procedure upon t&at proposition. Presumptively the defendant bad a right to writer the business office of the Chronicle," which was a public place open to all its ad vertisers and subscribers and to tbe world at larsje. Presumptively the delendant ia guilt less of an assault to murder or of any other offense, ard though those presumptions were overdone if be should prove any facta which exculpate him, vou would be bound under rour oaths to give him -the full benefit of those fiicts. Now, then, gentlemen of the jury, to the lines of the defense themselves ; and Urst I wish to address some considera tions not only to you, gentlemen, but also to the Court, npon the question of insanity, and this is first upon tbe law and second upon the facts. Now, I claim that there has been a great misconception here upon the other side expressed by tbe observations of Judge Campbell about" the conditions ot tbe law relative to insanity In this State, and know ing, as I do. the extreme diligence and wide an.i diversified reading and knowledge of the law, I could only infer that perhaps Insanity has not yet reached a recognition except among the Papaeo Indians or those who dwell with them. Mr. Lloyd The further you get along the nmre crazv you get. Mr. Highton I am willing to take the ad mission from the other side that their con duct is calculated to luduce insanity. I think it Is an xcelletit admission for tbe pur poses of this defense. A statement ol the relation of law and in sanity followed, the case cited being lloyne, 02 Cai., 120 to 125. A recess was taken. Afteruoen Session. ?.lr. Highton resumed his argument on the opening of the Court in the alteruoon. Speak ing of the Hoyne decision he said : " At page 120 of that case Mr. Justice MeKinstry, speaking tor the Court In banc, says: The Court below charged the Jury, As a defense to tbis prosecution the defendant has Inter posed the plea of insanity. Insanity, as used In this sense, means such a diseased and deranged condition of the mental facul ties us to render the person incapable of dis tinguishing between right and wrong in rela tion to the act with which he is charged.' This is precisely the definition of Insanity upon which we rely iu this case." THE DEVKSDAST'S HIKTORY. After a most exhaustive consideration of insanity and the procedure of Courts in cares where -insanity is a defense, Mr. Uihton proceeded to ive the history of the defend ant, as followa : The defendant was born In hii Francisco in tbe year 1857. He lived here until 1870, a period of thirteen years, with the exception of a very short visit of four or tWe months, w bicb he paid to Ger many, which is the land of the nativity of his father. He attended school here ; among others, the Oakland College school, presided over by the Kev. Mr. Drayton; the Union College school, under the charge of the Rev. I)r Huddart. and the University school, pre sided over ty Mr. Bates. sCThen, at the age of 13, after having resided in Sau Frnuclsco for the period I have stated, and commenced his education in this city aud its neighborhood, he went to Hanover, ia Germany, where he attended school for a period of about 'two years. Then, at the age of 15, he returned to San Francisco and attended the feouth Cos mopolitan school, which is one of tbfa public schools of San Francisco, for a pertod of about two years ; after which he remained for some six months at Beald's Business College. He then became a clerk In bis father's office, his father being then , and having beeu for many years, extensively engaged in mercantile pur suits In the city and county of San Francisco, and engaged In other enterprises in other parts of the State and outside of the State. He remained a clerk in his father's ofiice for the period of about two and a balf years, until 1ST", when be became the Secretary of the California Sugar Iteflnery, and Le has held that position ever since, as well aa the position of Treasurer of the Hawaiian C ninircitl and Sugar Company, anrt a EHreet of of that company, and also that of elng one of the members of the house of J. D. Spreckels tc Co.. which has lone ex litcd in this city and county, CONCUMION OF THE BRAm. Now, then, I come down to the facta, and bearing In mind the views which have been fceietefore expressed aa part of this open tog to what we term the predisposing cants-1, the testimony tending to establish which we design to introduce. About the mcnih of June. 1-80, o.n Seventeenth firset in this city and county, the de fendant in this cause was thrown from a buggy, and met with m very serious acci dent, which produced concussion of the krain. He was at that time Secretary of the eompatiy to which I have alluded, and 4own to that period had discharged, un aited, fcls entire duties as such Secre tary : but when this accident orcurr'd he was confined to hit touts and to his bed, compelled to leave off the performance of all bue obligations, placed under the care of very able physicians who will be t-itro.- uced before you for two or three month, and became utterly unable, tnrough his physical condition, to attend o business. In consequence of this very dangerous accident which occurred to blni, and which produced the immediate street to which I have invited your atten tion, of concussion of the brain, and by reason of the fact tbat he was unable from that cause, aud at tbat time, to fulfill his duties as Secretary of tbe corporation by which he was employed, one of hii brothers was selected to assist him, end thenceforward, for a very con siderable period of time, mostly did the work which devolved upon the acting Secretary of that corporation. Some three months, however, after this ac cident, or about that time, the defendant returned to the office of the corporation and commenced tbe endeavor regularly 1 1 fulfill bis functions as Secretary, hut he suffered greatly, although, of course, to a certain extent intermittently, from pain in the head, until, about januiry. Ia81. a period of some eight inon ' hs.or thereabout-, after the accident seven or eight months when an abscess formed in the head, behind the drum of the ear. and this abscess was the result of the accidvnt which I have endeavored to describe. From this illness, accompanied, as it was, by the most intense suffering, he was con fined to the house for a period of about four mouths. He was six weeks in bsd at that time, and mainly delirious. Two SEVERE AND IMPORTANT OPKAKATION9 Were performed up n him. One of these operations was performed by Dr. Lane, and consisted of cutting through the ear drum and into the bone at the back of tbs head, where, of course, a large quantity of pus had settled. The other operation, which was performed by Dr. Hummir, assisted by ! r. Douglass, eonsi'ted of cut ting behind the eat, through to tho bore, and inset ting drainage tubes in order to enable tills accumulated pus to be die charged a very delicate, very serious and very dangerous operation. He was now, under the instruction of the very able physicians and surged. s by whom he was attended, directed tj abstain lroni work for a period of at least a year. He suffered pain which amounted to agony; was frequently leeched and blis tered, and underwent a very greatamount of torture. At last. In ilay. lsal. he started, for the benefit of his health, with the hope that bis recovery might become complete, on a trip around the world. He was ac companied to . New Vork fspecially by Ir. I'iurnmer, who remained with him there for a period of about two weeks, on ao count of his physical condition. He then went to Bremen, in Germany. In company with a friend : for months after Dr. Plum mer parted from hiui in the city of New York he su' ered. at intervals, acute pain, and bo consulted very eminent physicians and surgeons both iu New York and Ger many, aud ur.derwe it their treatment, lie went from if; cm.-n through KuroDo. and returned to tun i ran io by way i;f l hu.a and Japan, ariiving lice, o.i h s.c'.uru, about the first day of April. 1W.'. Now we will i;ow to you roia by medi cal testimony and by the eviil. i.te of ac quaintances, friend and r-lative. tJe permanent consciences of this accident, and of these iilneisos, aud how they in creased tbe suscepii -I ttv o: his brnu. and rendered him liable to severe and pro traded head iches. A y ung iu ,n, poe escd. as he is now, os ni'.iie than average iiitel.i.'ence. he ncveithe'.e s surlered so acutely that, as those g ntlomeu will ex plain t) youwhoaru fa idlitr with the jjatiio'.o-iii-ul condition ot the brain, th ,t ne reciine peculiarly u cep'lb'.e to excit ii.g ra-jcei of a. y de.-crii tiou, those nppli caoie to ltd c.ise, o inciting of facts to which, in a very lew moments 1 sha.l be giu to dit uct your attention. CUML'I.ATIVE EVIIK!i:E. He at one time had to go to Antot te Lis Catbers ranch, and sek rellei there in sutdoor exercise. He was unable to bear the confinement and restraint of an office. He was a young man who bad always lived at home: who was most dutiful and ;thd tn bJUnerent?- naturallv tmtanie ana Krone m no uiojvo.i.on. n at one time developed. t- a very con siderable extent, good soc.ai iiistmc s Which are natural to the youn'. Aftei tbis accident, aad after thasc i.;;:c-tre.-, and after his return from this trip from around the world, he ceases u take any special iatereat m gcneial society. H became liable to feelings cf restraint and ncrvoesnesa. He was to a certain cx tnt the victim of a constantly oerrersed lrriti bliity. The. were other chances lesnltiny naturally and logical.y from the ics;on o-' the brain which fallowed th. acci unt. which were observable by fr.cnas ac quaintances. iruivts a;.d .:ul ..!' visers, ailhoi'.Kb, of com sc. never v. oer. of to turn, al w hioh it aj ptan d ti.a: l would take a vei y loni intei va! t't t. me completely overo. ni. I cu.not l;.rt... and do not thin it isi.ec'--;r ". further g in:o pirnou-ir :i l branch o: t'ne ac. I si. ;i to you tt.at iy me tne.f.i .. rnony. arJ by the et.m n of o;ii-;f wbich vri.l be reteivcd t-y the outt. we shall show the reiul of this m tiry and of these il.nese up -n the defendant, us il lustrated by Ms "i'meiiiOr and his on Juc. nd that wo shall fu.ly esiabli-b what art, known as predisposing causes to tbe ultimate tact upon which ihi branch cf tbe defense will root. WesLal oertainly show that the lesion of the brain ren 'ered it more sensitive to excitement ar.d li.:b':e to morbid feci in?: tb-.i -w:-.. vn probably, to a certain -. u in the braki resulting from the concussion, which it ook years, fully to develop, and we sball dlustrateastn. establish lhee facts in the oaAaner 1 have before indicated. Now. then. 1 co sue down to a statement ot what I term the exciting cause: that is. I mean by the exciting causes, those causes di rectly connecting themselves with tho mental cdition of the defendant at tho precise time when the act complained f here occurred. You will understand, rentlemen, this general division, the pre lisposing causes relating to Lhoso matters, which, so to spealt, prepare the mind for the influence of the causes to which 1cm aow calling your attention. ajid which are termed exciting cause Tacts leading up to the accident which you have been impaneled to in vestigate. Now. we aro entitled at a mat tet of law. and this Is a branch of the law which this dourt has very frequently ap plied, and it is not necessary to go into it to any great extent, to intro.hu e in evi dence here whatever facts there wore which operated upon a mind predisposed, as Ihave already detailed you. would lead op to the ultimate development, cither of what is called impulsive insanity or tran sitory mania. What then were thoso ex alting causes? ATTACKS OV THI " CHROVICLE." The chief prosecuting, witness. Mr. Michel U. de Young, was. and 1 think since the year 18tb', or thereabouts, has been first one of the proprietors, and lat te ly the sole proprietor or the San Fran cisco Chronicle, a newspaper constantly and every day read by thisdefendai.t. who. In the condi ion which 1 hve de scribed or suggested, was devotedly at tached to his father and to his mother and Who was a young nn,n who bad been brought up to consider reputation and Ufa as the equivalents ich for the other. Now this paper instituted, or rather the main prosecuting witness here, who waa responsible for its contents, instituted a series of attacts upon certain business en terprises in which the father of this de fendant waa engaged and upon his msvhod of conducting some of those enteriTise-?, and upon his association or connection made out in the columns of that ne & per with certain public questions that mro or lees interested tbe readers of all tho news papers in the land. There Is very nni h of this matter of which you will see the defense here is made to the com plaint. 1 wish to draw the line of distinction clearly and unequivo cally between those statements which we rely upon here as being exciting causes la the sense which has already been de fined, and those statements, whether we aerree with them or disagree with thetu. which were legitimately within the prov. Inoe of the prosecuting nitnesa as the proprietor of tne news paper which I have already named. That paper here attacked an al leged system of slavery in the Fandwkh islands and in the Kindom of llawai. It attacks the reciprocity treaty between the Sandwich iBlands and the United States. It attacked tbe Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company, of which Claua Spreck els. the tatber. was tne rounaer. ana in which he was and always had been one ot the largest stockholders. Now, upoa this we bare bo criticism to oner. H'o have no complaint to make here of the liber ty or independence of the press. We have no objection to present to a full exposition of every business claim or politicul measure, either actually injurious or sup- Sosndio be actually injurious to the pub c interests. We recognize fully and wish to be understood as recognizing, whatever our individual opinion may happen to be. the great utility of a fearlett ana independent press, represen ing th public good and all that is best and mo t enduring in our civilization. Hut Michel H. de Young, prosecuting witness in this case, did not limit himself to the usual methods of newspapers which aie recog nized as both followers and leaders of eu llghted public opinion. He followed tne luiesof autSIf PERSONAL JOURNALISM, The greatest curse that ever fell upon a free community, a curse which carries desolation and despair into baKpy hoins and into the breasts of individual men nl individual women. He attacked Claat Spreckels, the father of this dofeMant, personally in numberless articles, making a large volume, which 1 ha e hero in prin; before me, both editorially and in the local columns of the Chronicle, and every one of these personal attacks was absolutely un true. He not only assailed Claus Spreckels, but He assailed bis family, on one occasion not excepting his wife, the mother cf this defendant. lie ridiculed and insulted him in every manner to which a business man and the father of a family is most sensi tive. By way of illustrating that propo sition and what we shall bo able to st b lish with regard to it, taking the mere appellatives which were ap plied, or some of them, to C.aji Spreckels, will furnish tco most striking illuslrationa. He was spoken ol as the sugar king of Hawaiian ilb. at the Kanaka sugar king. as KingSprcckelt. as king of the sngar trade, as a prince of Honolulu, as a Kanaka pr. nee ai s ugat king Claus, Clau3. C-l a-u a with mn Claus, as Sir Claus Claws, as a fcandwicb Island knight, as a knightly reside- at sugar refiner knighted by King Kalakaus, as the boss monopolist, as the liniau ogre, and his brother was s oken of. or. ot them, as the son of Sir Claus. and bit wife nicknamed "Lady Spreckels," hit children alluded to as scions of the ncbie house of Spreckels. Tbe whu'.e family antl their intimate friu.d weie referred to as the Spreckels crowd and family, ring and combination. He waa mentioned as the leader of the Spreckels destiny, illustrated by King Kalakaua as the bead of tbesugar ring- et the Li.iputian magnate. These are ore illustrations of the appellations and firm of expression which wera individual)! ap plied to Mr. Claus Spreckels in the course of this crusade against him in the col mrans of the San Francisco Chronu-le. Hut the prosecuting witness in this cae did not stop there. His p rsonal rjargei were far more serious, far more tear hing, far deeper, far more injurious and far more wounding to the sensitive heart of an honorable man than any bins: that could be expressed by nx re ridi ulo ol irony. He violently attacked CIp.u Spreckels' business enterprise and hii mode of conducting business, hr rsperscd his honesty, his ii,teprity and bis humanity. Thewe libel-t and personalities began as early as June ao, 18sl, and were continued until Novem ber 16, 1AH. some three days before thn affair occurred, which it is your pai ticulai province to investigate. '1 hey numbered altogether 12.: or 12t. 'i hey were punlinheu in all sorts of forms, both iu the local and tue edi orial columns of the Citron id. but always most prominently and inosl orfen-ively. They caused much com :n ; n! ic other journals seine of "which were nls read by the defendant, and thej' cau-cd this comment, not merely by their lengtt but by their fcevetity and by the GLARING HEAD LINKS Through which the CAronu7 in connec tion with this topic sought to attract the attention of the public. And all these per sonal assertions reached and operated upon the mind of this defendant in a manner which the witnesses will describe, and indicates the danger which constantly existed that they would drive him into an abnormal eondition. They were almost beyond the possible endurance of human nature in its most mature and desolated condition, and they were calculated ti disturb the in tellectual poise, at all events for a time of a young man who had suffered as the de fendant in this case had suffered: who has the sentiments of honor which he pos sessed; who loved his parents as he did, nd who could not comprehend the nature (hat could conceive or the motives that co.tid prompt, so "iaholioal or per-iMam ii invasion of all that honorable me n held dpar and sacred. And for the purposes of this case it will he quite immateri nl whether th articles and paragraphs to which T have at luded were true or false. In either event they reached and affected the mind of the defendant, as we shall clearly prove, and prf o.-uiss in themselves which nr-silt have p winced the result of i.-nputsive it 5i.ii:y nr ir;i:iiinry u.ania; but they were, in f.i ., ;i' - i t.f ly untrue a'ui ui:fotinoel t-veil i. at.y ot tho-e p!asihle fictions which r.-aotitilly simulate truth. I may, by the vv:iy f i.iitrat'.o:), segrt-jite a few of tbe specific mru'i.Htionj e;ai:it Clans Spreckels tj sue-v you whst they were aud the effect they w-.-te i;Ue!y to produce, lie was vlenUiied in the f-s:i Fratitisco ' Chronicle " wtth a sys ttiu of slavery or peonage in the Sandwich Isiunu. which mas described as almost un preceJi nfeJ m i:.s inhumanity, and which b&d iu actual t-.ltei.ce, and assuredly noue in connect. r,n w!:h claus prcke!s. This sys tem w.is unfavorably contrasted with any form of slavery that had previously existed, either in aucieut or modern time. He was untruthfully represented as having enticed hrnorai.t and innocent men to the Sandwich Il;i!i !s and then as having forced them Into his ff M and reduced them to starvaUon and servitude. He was numbered among to iis( i he Very huiguage that was employed the monsters of humanity," and he was i ieutified as one of the principle demons in what was termed the hell of Hawaii, lie was depleted as a merciless tyrant even among our local merchants. He was ridicule! as proud of au eminent rank among w hat were culled liie colored aristocrats of Hawaii, and all this was done in the face of exactly on trary -i '-'.on derived by the prosecuting witue---. , . . J II. Ie Young, from Ciaus preciiel- i...i.svif. He was accused of having corrupted u part of our local press. He was heralded as the head mover iu shameless rob bery, lie wus charged with crime ugalust the community. He was connected in Ihe columns of thi.4 journal with barefaced licen tiousness; with the alleged establishment of a harem at Honolulu; charged with having pandered to the dusky King to promote bis illicit pleasures IhH'.i there and at the capital of our own ."state. He wus specified as the author of a fulse and fabricated tahle of com-' mereial statistics. He was relerred to as the author of political corruption in our midst, lis' was said to have been instrumental iu having introduced tiie Hawaiian l'UXTATION t-LAVK I.ASU . I n to a Ili puliliean club. He was drawn into tiie inconceivable infamy through these abso lutely manufactured statements of facts of haviniT, quotins the very language, sold white women to w hiie and black men for infamous purpo-es. The kingdom of Haw-ali was re ferred to us the new Mongolian Kmpire tun-,1,-r the ' Kalakaua-Spreckels dynasty, thus reaching the well-sustained and w t ll-lounoed principles of our people against Ihr Introduc tion of the Mongolian element into our popu lation. In relation to the Hawaiian Commer cial and sugar Company, in which latis Spreckels holds t- lay unbroken his original certiti 'ate of stock precisely as it was de livered to him in the first instance, and of their shares, of which neither he nor the de fendant have ever sold one, lie and his sons w ere ftdsely aspersed as having cheated their no real. tile friends and acquaintances, and committed crimes for which they ought to have been punished. He was mentioned as having a design to have one of his sons crow ned us King of Ha waii, and mercilessly ridiculed for tnat Imag inary reason. His wife, the mother of de fendant, was ironically dubbed, '-I.ady .Spreck els," and she and her husband spoken of as the I.ilipuiian magnates, of whom King Kala kaua was the august master. The prejudices, just ami proper of our citiZi-us. against the lep osv, were invoked by an untruthful asso ciation of Claus Spreckels with the dissemi nation of that most fearful of all diseases. He was held up iu every conceivable way to scorn, contempt and obloquy, and on No vember lis, iss-i, three days before the shoot ing took place, the prosecuting witness, Michael IV Young, published ' a long article, purely lictitious, both in Its statements and in its deductions, iu w hich some of the worst of the previous libels were reiterated. This ar ticle, iu which mercantile dishonesty, on which any man bred to business is most acutely sensitive, was specitti-ally alleged against Claus tepreckels aud bis sons, ami it was the culmination of three years of per-' sonal journalism directed against him and his family by the prosecuting witness, the silent witness in this ease, and all this was published against a gentleman aud a mt reliant w ithout a single 11 aw in his record, who had largely conn United to the prosperity and advancement or this city and stAle, and who prided lnmself above all things upon bis American citizenship; who had identified himself for many years with the political ideas w hich the Chronicle" has assumed to represent, and w ho was free from every vice, from every thought and from every feeling winch could bring him discredit as a man, a husband, a father or the head of important commercial enterprises and ventures. This was habitually read by and brought home to a sensitive young man, a loving sou w ho had alwavs resiled with his parents, by whou. these calumnies were necessarily discussed In his piesciiee a young mini, too, who was a victim of accident and sicknesses which had seriouslv affected his nerves and his brain ; and a young man who had been taiulil to be lieve what is necessary to the maintenance of the highest society both here and elsewhere, that w hi.e life should be protected, the pro tection of reputation is equally necessary, and that in a couutry where reputation is not guardud and protected, violence is the neces sary, the inevitable I bad almost said the de sirable result. I think I have sufficiently stated the ex citing causes, not of resistible passion, but of impulsive insanity or transitory mania. 1JJ OUTLINING THK TESIJMONI Which we propose to introduce In this rase, as I have said, 1 do not propose to discuss the law about the aniissubllity of these articles which we desire to read, but w e say generally that they are all admissible under the authori ties quoted, and others directly applicable upon the ground that they reached the mind of the defendant in this case, and thereby be came exciting causes within the dcliuition, of that term. The question is here simply what predisposing cause exi-ted. Were the "Chronicle" articles sufficient to constitute exciting causes. The very fact that they were untrue, which is the theory of the defense here, rendered their publica tion more likely to affect the defendant's mind. However, I must now close that branch of the opening of the case, and rapid ly go over the lust, but not the least impor tant, division of this defense. We shall in troduce testimony, gentlemen of the Jury, reaching back through the whole period which 1 have endeavored to cover, from the most reputable and scientific sources; from persons the most intimate w ith Uie defendant and the most competent to speak of his con dition, as to eeh and every one of the lacts and circumstances which I have endeavered, hastily and generally, to bring before you. Hut suppose it should turn out at tbe end nf our testimony upon this subject that, In tbe judgment of this jury, the defendaut was not insane at the precise moment when the prosecuting witness, M. H. He Young, was shot, what d-fense remains on the facts, w hich we are prepared to prove? The re maining line of defense as to w hich we shall introduce w hat I conceive to be clear aud unequivocal testimony, Is that which is know n as self-defense. -, bKLl'-IlKFKXSK THKOliY. 1 The inherent right of self-defense was next considered. Mr. Highton continued: we shall prove by irrefragable and complete evl uenee, proving beyond all possible contro versy, as we understand it, that whatever was done" by the defendant in the otlice of the Chronicle " on the l'Mli of November, 13s4, was done conscientiously, and purely in the exercise of his right of self-defense against an attack which was made upon him by the prosecuting wituess, Michael De Young. We shall show- you, gentlemen, for I ant now coming to the specific facts with which this line of" defense will be supported we shall show you that Michael De Young was absolutely armed on that day, and we shall show you, inferential!- at least, that he was not only armed with one pistol, which Is some times considered to be sunieient for the pro tection of a human being who deems it re quisite to be protected in that way, but that he was armed with two. Only half or three q arters of an hour before tbi3 occurrence In the office ol the Chronicle," the prosecuting witness. Michael H. De Young, was walking on Kearny street, in this city, with his coat j completely buttoned, all the buttons being closed, and whlie he was traversing that street in that condition, the outline of the pistol w hu h he carried on his right hip was so conspicuous that it couid be clearly seen by every human being who observed it, and we shad prove to you by one of the most respect able young gentlemen in San Francisco that his attention Was specifically and directly called to this fact, and that he was about to mention to M r. De Young himself, w ith whom he was a quainted, the fact that he ought U loosen the buttons of his coat so that he w ould not be display ing to everybody the manner in w hich he w as armed. THK 6HOOTINO. Now as to the Incident iHe!f. We do cot pretend io claim here, and we do not wish vou to understand that tnis article of Novem ber in, 1 ss l, three days before the shooting, had produced no iuipres-iou or effect upon the o.f. ndaiit in thU case. We not only assert that it did, and that it had, but that he womd huve been less than a Hon, aud less than a man if it ha 1 not; but there was uo thought of violence in this young man's mind; he had not seen Michael il. De Young after the publication of this t-rticle until the after noon of Wednesday, oveuib.-r ltth, a very short time before this occurrei.ee took place. It was the habit of Adolph B. spreckels, the defendant, when he closed bis business for th- day, somewhere between 4 and 5 o'clock, after lie hud It ft his oflice, to go up on Kearny street, w here he frequently met some friends or acquaintances, and walk up and down that street, breathing ihe air and enjoying a period of that limited kind (4 social intercourse with individual friends. On this particular day be left bis office in the unial manner. He bail no intention and no thougbt hen he left the ofih-e that he would see Mr. Michael If. De Young at all. He walked lip to the wM side of Kearny street, a short distance south of the fclite saloon, w here be encountered aa intimate friend of Ids. a wmoc rentleman by tne name of Walters, who win be In trod need before you as a witness. Tliev stroUed along; leisurely together toward tbe tiite saloon, which, us I understand it, Is at the northwst corner of Morton street aud Kearny street, la this fry and county, as they approached the Elite saloon ihe prosecuting itnrs, Mr. Michael II. De Yours, came out of the saloon Immediately before Uieui, and, of course, as we understand tbe facts, seeing them, as be necessarily must have done at that precise moment. A HOSTILE HOTI.-.it. When tbe eye of the prosecuting witness encountered that of the defendant, .spreckels, his coat was buttoned in the same manner la which it had been buttoued m half an hour before, when the outltue of tbe pistol was seen upon bis right hip. He Immediately uo bottoned his cout, w ith the exception of tbe top button, and threw his hand back aud pot it down Into his right hand p:cket, not at ihl time luto his hip pocket, but luto bis right hand pocket, at the same time gUtacing at the defendant. Spreckels. In a maimer which indicated hostility, unfriendliness, and con veyed that iden to his mlud. Of course this motion, this expression, coupled with all that bad previously transpired, did create, and ought to have created, some Impresslwa upon the mind of this defendant. Mr. De Young wuiked along the west side of Kearny street, in the direction of bis office. The delendant. Spreckels, and bis friend Waiters strolled along behind him u the ordinary way. The fact is, although this movement upon the part of Mr. De Youug was not unobserved, ami thoegli, of course, it must hiire created Home Impression lu m imiui of spreckels, it had not produced au Im pression that was pai tieularly deep. He was not auti. ipHting for the moment any special personal d.ti gi r to himself, aud it was mora after the accident which occurred in the Chronicle" ollice thau before that Incident thai these fuels b-came deeply impressed upon his mind. As I have said, Mr. De Youiij- walked along on the wtst side of Keumy st'eet wlUi bis hand ia bis pocket, slid was follow ed not followed In tbe aeuse that they were follow mg after him, but physi cally follow ed by defendant tspreckeis ami Mr. Walters. M r. De Y oung reached the not tbeast corner of Hush aud Kearny streets that you kuow Is the corner directly opposite to tbe oflice of the Chronicle." He turned across to go into that oflice. Just at that very corner Mr. spreckels and his friend Mr. Walters parted. Mr. Walters had observed, as I understand the fact, that there wus a certain degree of moodiness exhibited about the face and tbe expression of the defendant (Spreckels, aud he was, perhaps, somewhat apprehensive, knowing, as he did, the antecedent history of the attack which had been made upon Claus Spreckels and Lis family by the Chroulcle," that some wild idea would take possession of tne defendant spreckels, and that be might try to execute it; but there was nothing of the kind. As Mr. WiUtersand the defendant parted at tbe northeast corner of Bush aud Kearny streets; Mr. Walters made some re mark to the defendant, such as to say, per. haps, I hopi? you are not going to do a fool isli thing," or, I hope you won't make a fool of yourt-elf," mill a remark as one young man might muke to another with whom he wus Intimately acquainted, and the respo'ise to thai observation, and what was coiucideiit with everything tnat subsequently tianspired, that the defendant Spreckels ' ad no intention of doing unythlng tbat was foolish. Mr. Highton said the defendant entered the 'Chronicle ' tllce "With the exact de gree of rr.oi Kn indignation Which a young man under the circum stance was autaoriz-d to possess, and for the purpose bimply, if he could, by the mere Use of his tongue. In a decent and courteous man ner, Induce the proprietor of that paper to put an end to the attacks w hich were embit tering the lives of his tiiniily aud of himself." It was contended that the repetition of the cull, ' Mr. De Y oung," is evidence that thtre was no Intention of shooting, and that when Mr. De Young turned iu response, bis cout was then unbuttoned all but the top button, and he put his hand In his pocket. This time he turned clear round, confronting Mr. Hjre kels there, and threw bis hand back Into his right hip pocket, and it became a quest mil then and there. Itemember Mr. Spreckels wus ad vaueed into that room Into tbat office. Those doors were closed. It would have been loii osslble for any man, even if the idea had occurred to him In tbe moment, to have escaped or run out of that oflice. He was In Instant, Imminent danger of being shot, the prosecuting witness then aud there having Ice means in bis possession to shoot him, and instantly upon the moment Mr. Spreckels pulled out his pistol, which he hud nut prepared in anticipation f any diffi culty, aud delivered the first shot. Then, as a matter of 'our.se, there was a move ment ou the part of Mr. lie Y'oung around that double desk, and simultaneously a movement of some sort upon the part of nearly all tbe cleiks and employees in that Office, and there was nothing left for the defendant Hpreckels to do, If he desired to save his own life, than to advance as rapidly as he could and purely xe the obvious intention of Michael De Young to shoot him. The consequence was that he went rapidly alter him, and delivered the second shot, not when be had fallen upon tbe Moor, as has been described by some of the witnesses here, but when be we standing wKh the stool of Kmerson lu bis hand, as a sort of protectien or shield, while be was proposing to shoot at tbe defeudant, Spreck els. Now, gentlemen, these are, as I under stand them, the leading facts constituting this line of defense." At the conclusion of the argument tbe Court adjourned until Mouday morning ut 11 o'clock. i a a i JOTTINGS. Flirtation. . Flirtation is damnation. Talmagi, s Well, if flirtation Is damnation, ) Our fears away we'll fling; For, if he's right. Damnation's quite Apleasant kind of thing. And, by the way, Webere may Ray That past experience teaches There'll be once more, Just aa of yore, Damnation at the beaches. And sad to tell, lie knows full well Who hia experience starches, There's often been, Plain to be seen, Damnation in the churches. She "There is often a vast difference between a boor and a bore." lie (ftsh ing) "And are most men either one or tbe othei?" 8he (wearily) "Well, a man is a boor when he does not call on us, and generally a bore when de does." "Castor oil keeps away the fliea," says a recipe. Tbis is probably true, bat it will never become a popular remedy, owing to the difficulty in inducing a Hy to remain still while you open its mouth and give it a dose of the oil. The wars in Egypt and China have suggested new fashionable ornaments to Parisians. Leal or imitation bullets are now used as buttons, miniature swords and suns cerve as hair pins and brooches. Ladies are said to look un usually formidable in these tiny orna ments. Princess MathilJe was so delighted with M. Di L ssep's speech at hi3 re ception into tbe French Academy that, when congratulating the new immortal, she exclaimed: "My dear Lssops, I can't help it, I must kiss you." "Do," nimply replied the Academician. She did. iliss Florence Marryat is a tall, well formed, rather masculine woman, bhe has a deep, strong voice. Her com plexion is blonde, her hair dead gold, and ber face pleasant and intelligent. Miss Marryat has published forty-three volumes iu eighteen years. Her lec ture, which lias been hpard in several American cities, is called "Love Letters;" tbis is a satirical description of English men in society. There has been at least one alto gether novel incident iu the royal visit to Ireland the honorary de gree of doctor of music conferred upon the Princess of Wales by tho Duke of Abercorn, as Chancellor of the Eoyal Universily.