The Hawaiian gazette., 1870-08-10

quest of respondents counsel, filed the con-
tract referred to and also the following
plea. viz -" And now at this day comes
! Clip All Chan, alias John Carpenter, alias All SUM-
by his attorneys w. C. Jones and Henry Thomp
son. and for reply to the return and amended re-
turn herein, respectfully states. That he admits
that the subject matter of the litigation before
the Police Court at Hilo. was the alleged deser-
ton of petitioner from service under what pur
ports to be contract like unto the copy on file
herein he further admits that the said supposed
contract which was brought before the said Po-
lice Justice at HilO, had what purports to be an
endorsement such as is set forth in the said
amended return and he further admits that the
records of the said Police Courts, will shew that
R.. V. Husbands, who made the complaint against
the petitioner for alleged desertion under said
supposed contract, was the agent Of the repre-
sentatives Of Theo. Metcalf and manager of the
Metcaf Plantation.
And thereupon, the petitioner AYERS that the
said supposed contract was never executed by
him that he never executed any contract, but
that under glowing promises of high wages and
a prospect of speedy wealth in a foreign country.
to him indefinite he was induced to go on board
the Prussian ship Matador then lying in the
Port of Macao. in the Empire of China. about
the beginning of the month Of June A. D 1865 :;
and that some DAYS after he had been on board
the said ship, the paper purporting to be a con-
tract now on file in this court was thrust into his
] e; e.,
tents and without any signing or executing Of
the same by him, that in company with many
others of his countrymen he was carried by the
said Prussian ship Matador to these Islands,
where the said ship arrived about the Dist day
of July A. d. 1865 that he in company with
/ forty-nine of his countrymen, was landed without
his consent, and without knowing his destination ;
that he was sent to the Metcalf plantation on the
| Island of Hawaii, without his consent and with
out any knowledge of his destination that he
has there been forced to work and labor without
| his consent on SAID plantation, up to the time
that he left the same about the 10th of June a.
/ d. 1870, and that since that period he has been
held to service and labor without his consent by
the representatives of said estate until the time
| he left as aforesaid.
| And thereupon the petitioner alleges.
! l. That said supposed contract is not a legal
document made under any law of this kingdom.
2. That any assignment of contract for labor
provided such contract is valid and Obligatory
without the consent of the laborer contracting is
illegal and void and that the supposed transfer
on what purports to be a contract on file herein,
or the supposed assignment of the same. without
the consent of the petitioner, is absolutely void
in law.
3. That the servitude of the petitioner under
the said Theophilus Metcalf and his representa-
tives was involuntary.
A. That on the death of the said Theo. Metcalf,
the petitioner was entitled to his discharge under
the l4l5th section of the Civil Code, provided
that said supposed contrast had been obligatory
upon him.
s. That the 142Oth section of the Civil Code
is in direct conflict with the llth article of the
constitution of 1864, and the action of the Po-
lice Justice of Hilo under the same and the war
rant of commitment are illegal and void.
G. That petitioner was not brought to this
Kingdom under and by virtue of any law or au-
thorty of the Hawaiian Government.
Z. That the Hawaiian Government through
the Board of Immigration ignored the acts of
the alleged pseudo agent of the Peruvian Gov
eminent, refused to sanction them, or hold any
intercourse with said pseudo agent and only gave
a qualified permission to land the petitioner to-
gether with forty nine of his counrymen in this
Kingdom. Wherefore. the petitioner prays that
upon fun hearing of the matter. your Honor
will discharge him under the writ of Habeas cor
pus issued herein and restore him to his liberty,
with his costs in this behalf most wroughfully
sustained"
To this plea the respondents Counsel filed this
motion That 50 much of the petitioners ans
wer by way of traverse to return and amen
ded return as is contained in said answer
commencing at the words and thereafter
in the 18th line, first page, and ending at
at the words left as aforesaid in the 18th line,
second page and all points of arguments there
after contained, to wit, from that marked l. to
the word a" Kingdom" in point marded T. IN the
third page, be stricken from the answer by way
Of traverse, the same not being cognizabe before
this Court in the cause now at issue, and imper-
tinent to the point before the Court The petit
toner. with his answer, offered an affidavit which
being objected to by the respondents on the
ground that they were entitled to cross-examine
the Witnesses was not admitted. The court de-
cliuing to order any part of the petitioners answer
to be stricken out the respondents filed demur
rer to the portion thereof objected to as being
cognizable only before the Court that tried the
cause, and the petitioner Joined issue 1t was
argued for the demurrer, that the respondents
could not, by these summary proceedings, be de-
barred from jury of the country; that this
Court is not vested with jurisdiction to revise
the action of the Police Court. upon the facts
alleged before him. nor could it be reviewed
here by single justice. The ruling of the Coua
appears in the opinion Mr.. Thompson argued
for the motion to discharge. The contract on
file, admitted to be the only one on which the
prisoner was tried, failed to show any signature
by the prisoner as required by law for IFS en-
forcement nor is any written assent of the pris-
oner shown to the assignment of the alleged con-