The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1870-08-20

alias John Carpenter. August eth. 1870:
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus, wal
filed July ID, by w. e. Jones, the prisoners attor'
ney, and states that the prisoner is illegally re-
strained of his liberty for no criminal matter, by
j. II. Coney, Sheriff of Hawaii, by virtue of a
process issued by d. II. Hitchcock, Police Justice
of Hilo,a at the suit of one r. V. Husbands. A
rule was made to show cause why the writ should
not Issue.
The Attorney General argued that the petition
failed to show a prinla (acie case, that 1T should
set forth the precise cause of detention If known,
and that the writ should be denied, unless it APP
peared that the process under which the prisoner
is held was not voidable merely, but actually VOID.
Mr.. Stanley opposed the rule, in behalf OF w
l.. Green, the legal representative OF Iheophllut
Metcllf, of the agent Husbands, and OF the owners
of the Metcslf plantation, whose names were moi
specified, with the exception of Gilbert Waller,
claiming as one-fifth owner. Mr.. Stanley argued
that the case showed no probable cause and nc
want of jurisdiction in the Magistrate, and that
in any case the writ should not issue to deprive
parties of their rights by appeal or error.
Messrs. Thompson and Jones argued in support
of the rule, that although the writ would be de-
MED if, on its own showing, the petition showed a
case not within its purview, a specific statement,
further than to allege illegal restraint for no
criminal matter was not requisite. The Court
ordered the petition to be amended by statement
of the cause of detention, whereupon the petition
Al ulCA dh VIII ~bO RACNNNS 0NNS@
which the petitioner is held. At a further hear
ing on the rule, Mr.. Thompson argued that the
process was issued under a void law, inasmuch as
the prisoner was guilty Of no crime, and Art. ii
of the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude
except for crime that the mittimus was void as 1t
does not show the names OF the agents and owners
of the So Metcalf plantation, - and because it pre-
scribes no limit to the time of the imprisonment
and is issued under Sec. 1920, regardless of the
amendment of the Act of 1860, which limits the
Imprisonment in this class of cases to a term not
exceeding three months.
Mr.. G.. G.. Harris, in behalf Of the heirs Of The
ophilus Metcalf, argued against the rule, that this
proceeding was not intended for an inquiry into
the merits of the case, which can be done by APP
peal only. That this was a lawful process of a
lawful Court, and must stand until declared void
by a full Court on error. That Art. IL OF the
Constitution was intended against chattel slavery,
and not against acts which the law has prohib-
tied. That a crime means Il nahum prOhibitum as
well as a nahum per Sc, that if the mittimus is
defective from yagueneSs this Is not the mode to
test it's validity. That the amended law of 1860
refers only to second commitments by the Magis-
trate, and it does not appear that this was such.
That the Court will never issue the writ unless
the law under which the Magistrate acted is pal
pably and unanswerably unconstitutional.
MIR. Jones, in reply, argued that the writ OF
hd6e0S corpus is a mode of exercising appellate iu-
risdiction in cases like this. 1t was thereupon
ordered, that the writ do issue as prayed for, re-
turnable July %, at which day the Marshal
made return Of the body of the prisoner, alleging
the cause of his detention to be the mittimus, of
which a duplicate was set forth in the amended
petition. Time was asked by Messrs. Stanley
and Harris to answer, and was fixed for July q,
at which day they filed this plea, viz:
And now come the undersigned attorneys for the
representatives of the Metcalf plantation, and for
answer submit, that the return to the writ of ha6sas
cOrDus il not fun- in that If only SETS forth n mittimuS
and whereas in truth and in fact tine subject matter
in litigation before the Police Court at Hilo, was de-
sertion of the petitioner from service under a contract
like unto the copy on file, but that the contract used in
and under which the petitioner was brought
before the Police Court of Hilo and tried, contained
an endorsement in the words and figures following,
to wit L, j. s. Rogers in consideration of the sum
of one hundred and fifty dollars to me paid by Theo.
Metcalf, do hereby assign this contract unto the said
Thee. Metcalf his representatives and assigns under
the agreements and covenants within contained,
which are to be done, kept and performed by the said
Tbeo. Metcalf.
Witness my hand this 9th day of July, A. D. 1866.
(Signed) j. s.. ROGERS.
Witness
(Signed) WIN G IRWIN
Also that the records of the Court will show that
r. ". Husbands who made the complaint against the
petitioner for desertion from service under such con-
tract, was the agent of the representatives of Theo.
Metcalf, and manager of the Metcalf plantation, and
the undersigned submit that the return to the writ of
habeas corpus should be amended and if thereafter
trayersed by the petitioner, that a writ of certiorari
issue to bring up the record of said Court. All of
which the undersigned are ready to verify"
The petitioner admitted the facts alleged in the
respondents plea, and, at the request of respond
ents counsel, filed the contract referred to and
also the following plea, viz:
"And now at this day comes Clip All. Chan, alias
John Carpenter, alias All Sun, by his attorneys, W..
c. Jones and Henry Thompson, and for reply to the
return and amended return herein, respectfully
states That he admits that the subject matter of the
before the Police Court at Hilo, was the
alleged desertion of petitioner from service under
what purports to be u contract like unto the COPY on
file herein he further admits that the said supposed
which was brought before the said Police
Justice ut Hilo, had what purports to be an endorse
ment such as is set forth in the said amended return
he further admits that the records Of the said
Police Court, will show that r. V. Husbands, who
made the complaint against the petitioner for alleged
desertion under said supposed contract, was the
agent OF the representatives of Thee. Metcalf and
manager of the Metcalf plantation.
And thereupon, the petitioner AYERS that the said
contract was never executed by him that
he never executed any contract, but that under glow
promises of high wages and a prospect of speedy
wealth in a foreign country, to him indefinite, he
induced to go on board the Peruvian ship .Mata-
dor then lying in the port of Macao, in the Empire of
China, about the beginning of the month of June, A.
ID. 1865 !; and that some days after he had been on
board the said ship, the paper purporting to be a
contract, now on file in this court, was thrust into his
hands, without his knowing the nature of its contents
and without any signing or executing of the-same by
him :; that in company with many others of his coun-
trymen he was carried by the said Peruvian ship
Jhatador to these Islands. where the said ship ar
rived about the 2lst day of July 1865 ; that he, in
with forty-nine of his countrymen, was
landed without his consent, and without knowing his
; that he was sent to the Metcalf planta-
ton on the Island of Hawaii, without his consent and
any knowledge of his destination that he
has there been forced to work and labor without his
on said plantation, up to the time that he
left the same about the 10Th of June, 1870, and that
since that period he has been held to service and
labor without his consent, by the Representatives of
estate, until the time he left as Aforesaid.
And thereupOn the petitioner alleges
1. That said supposed contract is not a legal docu-
ment made under any law of this kingdom.
2. That any assignment of a contract for labor,
such contract is valid and obligatory, with
put the consent of the laborer contracting is illegal
Ind void and that the supposed transfer on what
to be a contract on file herein, or the sup