The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1876-08-09
HAWAIIAN GAZETTE
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 9.
Supreme Court of tIe Hawaiian Is
Iands----5uIy FERN. 1870.
REX Us. +. I. LENERAN
Hams AND JUp0 J. J.
Appeal from Police Court
OPINION BY JUDD, J.
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9.

On the second day Of June last, the defendant
was convicted in the Police court Oi Honolulu OF
the osnse of selling and giving intoxicating liquors
to native ilawa:inns al place called the Royal
Hotel he being at that time licensed retailerand
he was fined $500. He appealed TO the Supreme
Court IN hsncu on the following points of Inv
!. There was no legal evidence adduced before
tie Magistrate Of the fact charged, that defend
ant held license 10 vend spirituous liquor ut re-
tail the lime Of the alleged sale to native Ha-
walians.
2 There WAS no legal evidence that the per
to whom the liquor was sold were native Ha-
waIlans.
On the first point-The magistrate ceriifes up,
that the Chief Clerk OF the Interior Department
testified that he delivered retail spirit license to
defendant on the Goth of January 1876, for the
- Royal Hotel and be produced the application
Of the defendant for the same, the bond filed by
him and copy Of the license issued. The intro
duclion Of the copy Of the license was objected
to, whereupun the crown prosecutor gave notice
TO the defendant to produce the original. To
which defendant made the objection that the no.
tice to produce was not made in time.
The magistrate ruled that the notice was in
tins as defeodsnl was presumed to be in pos
session Of his license ani that unless the original
was produced he should admit the copy in evi-
dence. Original was not produced and the copy
EGs admitted.
Il was not necessary for Us to decide in this
case whether the production OF the original H.
cense itself was the only evidence or even the
best evidence of the fact that defendant was at
the time Of the alleged sale licensed vender Of
spiutuous liqnors. II the record required by law
to be kept, to Wit the book OF licenses designa-
ted in sec % Of chapter Al of the Penal Code,
had been produced. duly verified. and the entry
shown VI 8 license granted to defendant his plnce
OF abode the character Of the license, the amount
paid, aad the date, it would have been sufficient
eyldeuce Of the fact that defendant then held
such aIicense. if the year since granting his Ii.
ceuse had not expired. 3 Pick. 26O-l9 Pick.
1896. u Cash SOP.
In this case. however. the clerk o. the Interior
Department produced the bond fled by defend
ant and the copy Of The license required by the
statute form OF the bond to be annexed TO the
bond. (See sec 26, chap. Al. Penal Code, aud
this would seem to be sufficient.
But i, is conLeuded that the notice to produce
the original license was nat reasonable. Now
whether notice is reasonable or not is question
upon which the court must exercise Il sound dis
crction in reference TO the circumstances of the
particular case.
Wend. 296, Cow. 739 wend. ZIG, IL
Wend. sos.
The nature Of this action would naturally ap.
prise the defendant that the government would
churge him either with the possession of the Ii
ceuse or that proof would be offered that such
license had been issued TO him. The demand for
it then could not have surprised defendant
The court notices also that the place of bust
ness. where this license authorized the vending Of
spirituous liquors, is described 10 the bond pro-
duced as tue " Royal Hotel" corner Of Merchant
sad Nuuanu streets, Honolulu, being in the
square adjoining the police court This was quite
accessible to the defendant and an opportunity
was offered hlm to produce the original which we
must infer be declined to avail himself Of, as the
magistrate notes original not produced" Tn.
der the circumstances, therefore, delay of only
say FIVE minutes would have been necessary TO
enable the defendant to produce the license, and
notice early IL the trial sufficient in this case,
no disposition being shown by defendant ola
willingness 10 produce it.
On the second point. The magistrate took
the testimony OF tue several persons to whom the
liquor was sold who swore that they were nutive
Hawuiians born in this kingdom. But the mag
istrate had also the appearance Of the witnesses
to guide him 10 judging oil their nationality, 10
wit their complexion, language &c, and we can
not presume that the only evidence which led
him to the conclusion that they were native Ha
waiiaus was the statement Of each individual that
they we're such.
For this reason it is not necessary to rule upon
the question as to whether the birth place OF
person can be proved by his own statement.
The appeal is dismissed.
The Attorney General for the crown. A. 8.
HartRell and Z. I. 0'Haloran for defendant.
CHAs. G. HARRIS,
a. Francis JuDD.
1urt;cos G,prar,a fto,rt