The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1860-04-26

~. H. PecSe sworn-Witness received a com
mission Of Assessor from the Minister OF Finance, and
took the oath according 10 law. Lett a blank assess
ment paper at Mr.. WaterhOu>e's store, addressed to
him. Subsequently meeting MIR. Naterhouse' he told
witness that he did not intend TO make q return, ia
not consider wiiness's appointment rs legal, did not
recognize his authority, Nc- WttueSs did not, AFTER
that, think il necessary 10 call upon Waterhouse Tor
his return. and made the best estimate. IN confer
ence with his associate Assessor, that they could,
taking also the opinions Of other parties, whose names
witness declined to give. The Court SAID that IN de-
fault Of "a return, the Assessors we're 10 make one
according to the best means within their reach, they
were not bound TO make it from persona, examination
they would be trespasseTs /: they went upon tie
premises
MoNDAr. 23d-The Court heard argumen, upon
the matter Of the duties Of Collector, and hs rc>pon-
sibiljties, and said In order to ascertain the duties
Of the Tax-Ccllector, it was necessary 10 refer 10 tie
law under which he acted. That II he Interiered
with persons property he must have authority for
his acts, and that had already been inquired into.
Now the question oecurs-what was the ta1-li>t :;
was IL IN the nature OF an execution, 50 that property
could be distrainei for the wants Of the Government?
That there was "a power given 10 collect, and that
power was mandatory, and he collected Il IL the
nature OF an execution. The Collector was bound 10
proceed according TO his roll. The remedy Of the
party injured Was not against hint was against
other parties behind him. That the Collector had
power 10 levy upon the property or person of the
taxpayer. No action would lie against the Collec-
tor other than for a violation Of his own duties, not
even trespass.
D.. l. Gregg testified to the approval upon the COL
lector's commission being anteceient TO action upon
il. His recollection was that the commission and
bond were simultaneously presented and approved.
Mr.. Harris called Lorrin Andrews. Witness testi-
fei that he was Secretary of the Privy Council, had
been subueuaed and directed to bring here the records
of the Privy Council. He had not brought them.
He did not recollect any resolution of the Privy Coun-
ell TO convene the Parliament of 1858. Mr.. Harris
raised the point that if the Parliament had not been
.1ulr r,pyanai fh.s law va nj valid RpDlp1 fhar
plaintiff, by coming here under this law admitted 1t.
Ii the convocation of the Legislature could be ques-
toned, then also might the proper election OF any
member Of it be disputed, and SO the validity OF laws
passed.
The Court said it would hold here that for the pur-
poses OF This action, Webster was justified by the law
and bound 10 execute it as he found 1t.
Mr.. Harris offered to prove that the Representatives
House of 1859, did not consist of twenty-four men,
bers as required by the constitution. W. II. Pease
recalled and asked when he received his commission.
Court said, that this would come within the rule that
he was bound to his duty. Half a dozen witnesses
were called by plaintiff to show when the Civil Code
was published, Mr.. H.. contending that it was at a
time subsequent to the assessment. Mr.. Bates admit
ted that if there was no law they were not bound by
il. Defendants authority had been produced. If he
was in the discharge of his duty, it was fer plaintiff
to show he had violated the law.
The Court said, that plaintiff was undoubtedly
wrong in bringing an action against the Collector.
He was bound to levy if there were goods TO levy upon.
Mr.. Harris, in closing for the plaintiff, said that he
agreed with the view, that the Collector stood in a
similar position to an officer with process of execution;
but If upon inspection that was manitestly illegal, as
if signed ty the wrong officer, or not signed at all, =
could righttully resist service and nothing
could be levied under it. Webster was gazetted Tax
Collector, September 10th, but his commission bears
date October 70, hence he had never been duly gazet-
ted after receiving his commission, as required by
law. If be stood upon the PRONUNCIATION, then the
now presented, is not i'll accordance with
the PRONUNCIATION. Warehouse had a right 10 see
~ - ,,-1o- -I.ok ",lZR aa,al I'D 49,
tax list was that authority, which Webster was bound
to produce if so required. That Webster was bound
by law TO receive the tax list from the Governor of
Oahu, and from him alone, and to receive 1t from any
one else did not comply with the provisions of the
IL was necessary to show the date when Web
called for the taxes, and that it must have been
within the time prescribed by law for the collection,
VIZ in the months of September, October and Noven-
and subsequently, TO the date of his commission.
Unless Webster was the Collector when he first called,
lie had no right to make demand. And the ASSESS
nent and call must have been subsequent 10 the due
Of the law. The law was no law until
! had been printed and made public, which was not
until about the middle of November that the pu5lica-
ion in the columns of the -4drertiSer, which is not
he Government Gazette, was not a valid publication,
md the publication IL advance of the tax law sections
the POIyaesida, was not valid, because the entire
iw had not been published as signed by the King,
sc. But ifit shall be found that no demand was made,
+ that Webster, when asked for his authority, which
; the tax lst, did not show 1t, or that the governor or
ny agent of the governor had not delivered the tax
st TO Webster, then plaintiff must have a verdict.
10 likewise, If the law should be found not TO have
zen published at the time Webster made his demand,
houll he be considered to have proved that he made
demand
Want Of space compels US to postpone, till next
,eek. a full report of the charge to the Jury. They
in n verdict for the defendant, Webster.
Exceptions were taken to most of the rulings in
he progress of the trial, to be argued before the full