The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1877-08-01
Judd and McCully j. j.

fusal of service under some oil the following pleas
That the contract was invalid because:
() 1t was acknowledged before notary pub
lie, and not before special agent to take acknow-
ments of Masters and Servants.
~ The copy furnished the servant was not
fully executed BY the signature of both parties to
both the Hawaiian and English versions or
there was no attestation OF the acknowledging
officer to the servants copy.
(3) The contracts were not stamped
(4) The contracts were not upon the forms
prescribed by the Minister of the Interior.
Per Csu.iam. The several contracts which
were acknowledged by notaries public were e1-
ecuted prior to the Act of 1876 Chapter 46
which amends the Act Of 1872 Chapter 6. The
earlier act provided that Acknowledgements might
be taken "by some officer of the government
now authorized TO luke acknowledgements or be
fore some agent to take acknowledgements OF
contracts as provided hereinafter, while the
later act provides class of acknowledging off,
GERS or agents not having the general powers oil
notary or of un agent of the Registrar of Con-
veyances 10 acknowledge execution OF deeds or
of Judge of Court of Record, and ~ whom
Exclusively of the other officers named, is given
the authority TO take the Acknowledgements OF
labor contracts. But this Act Of 1876 does not
affect contracts which had been legally made be-
fore it was passed. The language OF the law is
too simple and the principle Of &c post facto le-
gislation too plain to require the adjudication OF
the Court thereon, IT the position had not been
seriously taken by Defendants Counsel.
The Court in the case Of A. Unna vs.. X eaa-
ua April Term 1876 considered and passed
upon the two points, that the Act OF 1865 re-
CURED that between Hawaiian contract lahorers
and masters there must be an instrument in both
the Hawaiian and English languages. each YER
sion signed BY both parties, but that it was not
required in order to its validity by statute that
the servant should be furnished with copy
The language of that case is as follows " There
is no statute that makes the delivery of copy
TO the servant necessary for the binding effect OF
contract. The statute implies that the ser
want is to have copy. but it nowhere says that
il is necessary to make the contract binding.
The servant had right TO copy, but be might
waive it, and apparently did So"
The Court does not inquire into the reasons
which prompted the Legislature TO the enact
ment but it is certain that the law does say that
the contract shall not have effect when executed
in one language only"
In each case where the defendant makes this
objection the plaintiff produces contract which
satisfies the requirements of the law This, by
force of the above cited case, must be held sufi-
cient The defendant is bound by the contract
which is fully executed IN whosoever possession it
may be. The defendants are in no cases with
out copy of the contract 10 some OF them sign
ed as to one version ony--in others a literal
copy of the first instrument, the signatures being
also copied.
1t was suggested in argument for the plaintiffs
that the law did not contemplate the execution
OF the contract in duplicate copies OF both Ian
guages a copy" being different thing from
such duplicate or counterpart. and that what
I: 81 ka - he Lac,
furnish the servant with a copy would be salts
fed by literal transcript. Although the case
of Unna vs. Kealaula above cited, which being
adopted here thus is made the decision of the
three Justices of this Court on the point, would
save the plaintiffs even if no copy had been
furnished, it will be well to examine the statnte
provisions bearing thereon. They are the fol-
lowing:
The Civil Code. Section 14l7 which was
first enacted in 1850 provides only that 1t shall
be written contract" while apprenticeship
papers of minors shall be contract of two parts,
signed and delivered by both parties, lone part
shall be kept for the use of the minor" The
law of 1868 requires that all contracts of service
when either party is Hawaiian shall be written
and printed in both the Hawaiian and English
languages, and shall not hare effect when ex-
ecuted in one language only.
the protection of parties to contracts authorized
by Section l4l7" which provides that every
contract for service shall in order 10 its Udlidi
be acknowledged before certain officers.
The Bird Section of this act prescribes fee of
fifty cents for each contract, 10 be paid by the
master. and no charge shall be made for the
certificate of acknowledgement on the copy of
the contract furnished the servant"
Chapter AZ of laws of 1876 amends the &C.
acknowledgement act in some other parts, but leaves
the above cited Section 3 unaltered. but the
"act relating to stamp duties 1876, in impos-
ing d stamp duty on contracts between masters
and servants adds the clause I" this duty to be
charged on each copy and to be paid by the en-
ployer." M
In giving Judgment on the l4th instant in thS
first of the cases included in this opinion, tie
Court said that they must be considered without
reference to the clause in the Stamp Act 1876,
all those contracts having been made previously
But we are clear that this provision does not
now affect the law of masters and servants con-
tracts IN respect to furnishing copy for this
actis entitled An Act relating to stamp duties y
and cannot be considered as amending the law of
masters and servants aud their contracts. Con-
stituton Article u "every law shall embrace
but one object and that shall be expressed in
its title" s.G
Inc only remaining reference IN the laws TO O
copy is that above cited from the act of 1872 mo
charge shall be made for the certificate of &C.
acknowledgement in the copy of the contract fur
nished the servant" which clearly is not pre-
scription that copy must be furnished the Sec
ond party in order to make the contract valid,
but prescribes that in case copy is required or
given the agent shall attach his certificate TO it
without charge.
The word copy" is defined in Webster's Die
tiorary as A writing ike another writing a
transcript from an original" Bouviers Law
Dictionary A copy is true transcript of an
original writing" IL the common and in the
legal acceptation of the word copy is not an
original, and we must therefore hold that
the second part shall be a true transcript,
of the original contract, to which the acknow-
Lodging agent appends his certificate without
charge, and which is to be stamped at the ex.
pense OF the master. Either party can come
into court on that copy.
Upon the third objection made that the con-
tracts were not stamped, the court holds that
such as were executed prior TO the date when
the Stamp Act went into force, do not require
to be stamped when brought into court
The last point in objection was that the con-
tracts were not in the form prescribed by the
Minister of the Interior.
The law of 1868. section 2, is aThe Minister
of the Interior is hereby authorized to prepare,
in both languages. printed forms of contract, as