The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1868-12-16

bis hand. which be the laborerl. claimed
to be insufficient to supply the necessities
OF nature. Il was very difficult to undsr-
stand them, for the Interpretation Is ex-
eesdingly imperfect. and the time eou-
sumed was very loug-so that it was
nearly three O'Clock when they were told
to 70 home to the plantation. and that
the magistrate would listen 10 their eom-
plant on a certain day, which had in the
meantime been fixed and summons Was
issued to their employer TO show cause
why his contracts shoald not be cancelled,
in accordance with the l.423i Section of
the Civil Code.
1t subsequently appeared that the
employer had procured process to be
issued against them for desertion. in be-
ing absent from his service without leave
in accordance with the .4Isth Section of
the Civil Code. The Japanese, when they
left the Government House, Immediately
proceeded home 10 the plantation, as they
were direeted-indeei, they had no knowl-
edge that any process had been sued out
agains; them. Their employer thereupon
received two of the men, bat refused to
receive Sing Ztseh, and requested the Off
Ger, who held the process, to keep him 10
the Lookup, and produce him before the
Court the next morning.
Now it is claimed. on behalf Of the
Japanese, that going TO the Board Of In
migration, or any magistrate for redress of
4 grievance, without leave Of the employer,
is not a desertion within the meaning Of
the LAWN other words. that every man
has right to 90 to the magistrate-leave
or no leave-and the magistrate will be
the judge of the frivolity of the complaint;
aud further, when man offers TO return,
and 90 to work, that the employer must
receive him. and allow him to 20 to work.
IL was then suggested in behalf Of the
employer, that though this laborer had not
really left the plantation until Wednesday
night, vet, inasmuch as he had not worked
on Monday and Tuesday, claiming to be i'll,
it might be considered that he refused to
work, and that the bowel complaint was a
mere pretext to cover the refusal. and thus
came within Section ! APO. To this it
was objected that such refusal was not
the refusal contemplated by the statute,
bat that an obstinate and rebeilious re-
fnsal TO work, was the refusal contemplated
by law nor was it the desertion contem-
plated by the summons, and sought to be
made out BY the employer in his CON-
plant II man claims to be i'll, and is
treated by his employer as a sick man. by
dieting or otherwise. that it is to be taken
as a conceded 6et that he is i'll. aud not
TO be raised against him thereafter, on an
other occasion as pretense; and that
this case fell within that line, viz, that
the man claimed to be sick, and thereupon
his employer allowed him to remain in the
house, and limited his diet to compara-
lively small quantity of rice, boiled in a
comparatively large qusntity OF water.
The fact that he Was sick, as he COM
planned, did not seem to be controverted
10 the laborer at the time, and was there
fore to be taken as conceded.
1t appeared upon the trial that the
japanese had received in cash a very
small sum of money for the services rem
dered during four months-as it was IN 4
derstood, not more than 1915, the rest 4
Of his wages being used up by deductions /
made for days when be did not work, from .
being alleged that during the
mouth of July, he only made 61s days, |
being Ill Of eataleOls disease when he I
left the ship 1t Is claimed on the part OF /
the japanese that if his sickness is not
brought upon him by his own imprudenee /
OF folly, be Is entitled to his wages with ]
out deduction; that the non-payment of ]
them, Notwithstanding he was apparently !
admitted t9 be sick, and his arrest, under
the circumstances above stated, and the |
refusal to receive him, when be had vol 1
unfairly returned after making his COM
PLANT, and causing him to be placed in /
the Lookup, were violations of his con-
tract which entitled him to have it can
ceIled-
The magistrate having decided against
the lAbOrer upon all the points raised in
bis favor, the case was thought to be of /
importance to be appealed to the 1
Supreme Court. in order that the rights 1
Of parties, under the contracts, may be
fully determined