The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1873-04-16

clsion, as follows:
Z" The defendant entered into contract to labol
for the term Of five years from the 1st of November
1865, and in the Apr! Term OF the Supreme Court
1865, be was tried, convicted and senter ced TO i'm
| rrisonment for the term OF five years, with hard
labor, for an assault on the plaintiff with weapon
obviously and imminently dangerous to life, and
that he remained in prison in execution of sentence
until his discharge the 9TH day of February last
/ The defendant was absent from his employers
service over one half of the term Of the contract
His absence, while under arrest and during the
time of his Imprisonment, does not seem to US a
"wifu desertion" from service, as the law
contemplates. He was arrested, tried, and SEN
fenced TO hard labor for five years. The time
he spent in Jail was an involuntary servitude "
recognized by the Constitution as such. He was
consequently unable to fulfill his contract had be
desired to do SO, inasmuch as he was restrained
from liberty by the officers of the law. Though
his Imprisonment was the result Of his own act,
that act was, in turn, caused by prOvocation from
the plaintiff.
Again, was not the return of the defendant 10
service under the contract, tco gears after lis
expiration, clearly barred by the limitation of the
law q? One law provides that no service imposed
by reason of failure to perform contract, shall
extend beyond one year next after the expira-
ton of the original term of service Another
provides for three months, but one year is the
longest term known TO our labor laws, in which q
labOrer can be compelled to serve after the origi-
nal term of service has expired. The language
appears clear and explicit.
Now, may not statute of limitations apply to
labor as well as to debt? debt remaining IN
settled for six years from the date when it be-
came due, is barred from collection, even though
the claim be just one and is still unsatisfed
at the date when it becomes outlawed. The nom
ful6llment OF the contract does not bar its becom-
ing outlawed So 10 like manner, contract for five
years labor becomes under our laws, as viewed by
us, outlawed at the end of six years from its
date and, under their letter and spirit, no en-
ployer can justly claim service after that term
has expired. And if this reasoning is sound, no
court has a right to compel service after six
years, no more than it can compel the payment
of debt after six years.
The statement that in d" contracts both parties
have their rights, and if either fail to fulfill,
a wise administration of the law will enforce
them" is no doubt sound. when the ful6llment is
not barred by other equally binding laws, or by
principles of equity. Had the laborer been taken
sick instead of having been arrested, and had be
remained away from the service Of his employer
for several years, or until after the expiration of
the contract term, will any law on our statute
book compel him to return to service, if he recov-
ers his health after his contract term has expired
Let US suppose that Afo had been sentenced
to tt0enty years Imprisonment, and at the end Of
that term, bis master claims the fuflment of the
contract. According to the ruling of the Court
in this case, the defendant would be compelled
to return and work out the unexpired term of
his contract, simply because the law demands
that all contracts be fulfilled.
1t may not have been within the province of
the Court to go back and take into considera-
ton the fact that the assault on the part of the
defendant, which led to his imprisonment, was
made in retaliation fer an assault Cd him by the
plaintiff, his employer. In other words, he was
provoked 10 commit the assault. 1t is an estab-
shed principle in common law, we believe, that
the provocation may be pleaded in Justification
of an assault Whether the defendants counsel
urged this as reason in his favor or not, we are
not aware, but it certainly should have had weight
in deciding peculiar case Of this kind.
We briefly restate the prominent points of this
interesting case, as viewed from our standpoint.
LIST. The non.fulillment of the term Of service
under this contract should not be held as .'wiful
desertIon," but compulsory absence, made by
positive order of the Court, and executed by
the strong arm of the law.
I'd. The principle of the statute of limitations
should bar the claim of the plaintiff, where the
law so distinctly limits the time after which a
contract shall not be binding.
Courts should compel every contract entered
into knowingly to be faithfully executed, but
strictly according to the law. No laborer should
have the option to willfully absent himself from
work, and thus violate bis engagement; neither
should the employer have the right to Violate
his engagement with impunity. The interests
Of all demand that contracts be faithfully car
ried out, under o reasonable construction of
the law, not merely for the protection of The
laborer. but also for that Of the employer, the
capitalist, and all business interests dependent
en- them.
We regret this decision, because one effect of
it win be to render it more difficult to obtain
laborers from any source. No Chinese. no Jap
anese. no Europeans, nor laborers from any other
country can be induced to migrate hither 10 serve
under contract, when they know the meaning Of
the engagement they enter into, according to this
ruling Of the courts here And no laborer should
ever sign contract without understanding the
full purport Of the agreement entered into.