The Hawaiian gazette., 1876-05-10
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian ISL
ands-.--ApriI Term, 1876.
REX rs. AUWA5 (ChinamanJ.
In Bauco on question reserved.
OPINION NY Jupp. j.

REXrs AUJKAB (Chtnaman).
| In BaDco on question reserved.
OPINION ny JUDD, j.
The defendant was indicted at the last term of
the Circuit Court for the fourth Judicial Circuit,
for the offence of having thirty tins ofoplnm
in his possession on the 9Th day of November,
1875, contrary to the provisions Of the Act of
1874. III pleaded guilty and was duly sentenced
aud the opium declared forfeit subject TO a ques-
ton reserved, which was certified to this Court
as follows =
Whether a showing that quantity of opium
was bought by the defendant Of Along & Achuck
on the day of June, A. D, 1875, according to
certain bills of sale, hereto annexed, they being
at that time licensed to sell opium, is justifica-
ton of tho defendant, or case 70 which the
statute under which the indictment is brought
constitutioDaly applies. If this question is an
swered negatively said judgment shall stand Gf-
frmed, otherwise to be set aside"
The Act Of 1874, which makes the possession
of opium Cnot obtained from the Board of Health
or licensed physician &C., penal offence, was
approved on the 9Th day of August, A d. 1874,
and went into effect and became law Oh one
year from and after its publication which we take
TO be the 18th OF August, A. D. 1873.
The bills of sale referred TO- show that ffty-six
tins of opium were bought by defendant Of the
licensed dealers, Along & Achuck, for S633.0O,
on different days between the 9Th and 10th OF
juno, 1875
1t is admitted that the opium seized on the 9Th
of November, 1875 is part OF the opium bought
10y defendant in June, 1875.
TIE defendants counsel contends that IL be-
ing admitted that the defendant bought the opium
when the statute expressly authorized it to be
sold under license, and the property being &C.
quired as a common law right. and not as slatu-
tory privilege, the mere holding of it cannot be
made crime except By violating The provisions
of the constitution IN respect to retrospective
legislation that this property cannot be taken
from the owner without compensation.
That all are to be protected in their rights
to property. and law making it felony to hold
such properly and declaring 1t forfeited under
the circumstances of this easel would DO as retro
speciiVe" and retroactive as any law could
be-"
Article Is Of the constitution reads No ret
respective laws shall ever be enacted" The At
torney- General for the crown contends that the |
Act ofl874 Is not retrospective" as it Furnishes
the possession of opium acquired after the publ
cation OF the act.
Says Dwarris in his work oD statutes, D. I64 |
" Laws are rules of civil cOudrct. prescribed for. |
and attaching themselves TO the future actions Of
men. They must from necessity and from their
nature, BE- prospective, otherwise they cannot be
rules of civil conduct. Laws cannot attach them
selves to conduct antecedent to the creation Of
the rules themselves. This would be a thing i'm
possible, for, at the time the particular transae-
lion took place, there being no rule a Law subse-
luently passed, was not, and from the nature Of
he case, could not have been, an existing rule
governing such q transaction, it would rot then
%, in that case, rule of civil conduct. The con-
iuct of the past must stand acquitted or con-
lemned, be lawful or unlawful when judged by