The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1877-03-21
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands
REx vs. PUAAIKI AND REX vs. KEA, ApPEAL
TO SUPREME CouRr IN BAsco.

u. u.
(Heard by consent in vacation.)
These are two actions originally brought in the
Police Court Of Honolulu contracts for labor the
first contract being for term Of five months dated
the Sd of November, 1876, at Sl2 per month. upon
which advance of $50 is acknowledged to have
been received; and the setond is dated the 18th of
November, 1870, for twelve months, at $40 per
month, upon which advance of $50 has been re-
ceived. The first is signed by Ii J. Coolidge,
per NJ. A. Coolidge; and the second signed by H. j..
Coolidge.
1t is made to appear that, at the tine of signing
the contrao, with Puaaiki, Mr.. Coolidge out of
the country, temporarily, and had left his plantation
in charge of his wife, who conducted all the bus-
ness. and carried the plantation generally
Now il is said that this contract is not bindiug
upon Puaaiki, because that Mrs. Coolidge had no
authority, in writing, from her husband, and could
not bind him so as TO make him liable TO the penal
terms of the 1923 Section of the Civil Code, which
enacts that if, complaint Of the servant, the
master should be found guilty of any cruelty mis-
usage or violation of any of the terms Of the contract
the aborer shall be discharged from all obligations
OF service aud the master shall be fined in sum not
less than five than hundred dollars,
and in default of the payment thereof be imprisoned
at hard labor until the same is paid"
1t is not alleged that there has been any violation
Of any terms of the contract the part Of the
ployer and it is admitted that Mr.. Coolidge return
ed TO the country after the contract had been made
in his name, and resumed the carrying on OF the
plantation himself.
The point in the seems to be that there is no
denial of Mrs. Coolidge's authority but on the con-
trary an admission of it., and indeed on express
recognition of it by her husband in thus aud similar
cases after his return. She was acting as manager
OF the plantation during her husbands absence aud
did all the duties of manager
Now if we were TO hold that it necessary for
her to have authority in writing do this espec-
nj of nha
other manager 10 have it. Tie employment Of labor
seems to fall within her authority manager, and If
she were lawfully authorized to as manager, it
not necessary that she should be authorized in
writing. Her act certainly bound her husband to
the performance of every condition of the contract
contained, not only in the contract ITSELF but those
required by the statute; and therefore there is
failure of 90 mutuality" of contract and, indeed,
Mr. Coolidge's subsequent adoption of her acts was
equivalent to his previous authority. There to
have been q mistake made at the argument in the
idea that this act did fall within her authority as
wife. Neither did it, but it did fall within her
thority as manager of the plantation, and in our
opinion, even bound her husband to the penalties of
the 1423 Section, far they could be enforced at
any time against the owner of any plantation. 1t
will be observed that the imprisonment clause in
said Section is a mere means of enforcing the pay
ment of the fine. The question raissd under the
1923 Section seems 10 be of much weight, for it
or company of shareholders, and yet when the
agent keeps all the terms of the contract the other
party to the contract would be bound by it.
Secondly, 1t is said that the contract is not bind
ing the defendants, because the agent, G. Barena-
ba, who took the acknowledgment to the contract
was appointed some days before the law could go
into effect, to wit on the 2Sth of September.
1t is alleged that the law under which this ac-
acknowledgement was taken and which is amendatory
of the Act of the 29th of July, 1872, passed His
Majesty's signature the 25th of September, 1876,
and was not published until the 1lth of October,
and therefore could not come into operation until the
Dist of October, whence argument is drawn that
the appointment of the agent who took the acknowl-
edgment of the contract of Puaaiki was imperative
and void, and continued SO for all time.
Whether the argument to the effect that this par
tcular law could not 60 iuto operation until ten
days after its publication the Island of Oahu, is
yai invalid, it is certain that the law had gone
into operation the Sd day of November, at which
date the acknowledgment was taken; and the 4h
Section of the Civil Code, which is referred to,
not in any way affect the authority Of government
appoint officers under law which is to go into oper
alton within ten days. And clearly it is the duty Of
government to appoint officers in such time that they
may be ready to carry out the provisions of the law
when it shall come into force And it is proper
that the public may have seasonable notice of the
person authorized. The law itself (Section ~
says that its object is to put limit to the time,
when ignorance of the law may be plead as
defence.
Thirdly, it is urged against these contracts that
they do not indicate in what labor the defendants
to be employed. and that they not sufficiently
particular with regard to the place of performing
the labor; and the 14l7 Section is quoted to support
that proposition. The section reads as follows :
"Any person who has attained the age of twenty
years, may bind himself or herself. by written con-
tract, to serve another in any art trade profession
or other employment, for any term not exceeding
five years"
Puaaikis contract reads that the said party Of the
second part promises to perform such labor for H. j.
Coolidge or his agent in the district Of Kooaupoko,
Island of Oahu, the said party of the first part
shall direct. This is clear contract to perform
services as q general laborer or servant; and the
Hawaiian version which is not literal rendering
(as it ought to be perhaps) has it " ma ka mahai.
etc" that is to say, farming, etc., and the place
designated in Puaaikis contract is in the district of
Koolaupoko. This is a clear contract TO perform
reasonable, ordinary acts of labor as he may be
directed in the employers usual and ordinary
business.
Now, there is no allegation that the men have
been required to perform any unusual and extra
ordinary labor. The most that be said Of the
contracts is that they loose far regards the
style of labor 10 be performed and were probably
meant to be so by both narties,-so likewise with
regard TO the place where it to be performed.
1ut slBneu lne contract uuu
there is allegationmade that either of the
parties here have been sent to any place or sub
jected to any exposure which was not reasonably
contemplated by themselves when they signed the
contract If they wished to confne themselves to
any particular kind of labor, they should have
themselves caused it to have been designated in
their contract; likewise if they had wished the
space, which they to be sent, to have been
especially limited, they should have caused it to be
inserted in their contract The contracts themselves
are not unusual or Unreasonable in their forms and
requirements.
We notice that Kea's contract is expired by lapse
of time and has endorsement it that he should
work days extra, and pay $500 costs Of Court
Thus on the papers it would appear that his time is
expired. Though it is said in the judgment Of the
Police Magistrate that he has 112 days to serve in
his contract, it is not apparent how the magistrate
arrived at that conclusion. Possibly it is IN
arising from not observing the date (year) or has
been extended in some other way which does not
appear. But we not asked to pass upon this
point and therefore will not do so.
These cases are entitled king vs.. Puaaiki." and
king vs.. Kea." The King is not proper COM
painsnt in such cases. In no respect do they fall
within the duties of the public prosecutor. The
employer in this case is seeking to enforce his
private contract and makes of the provisions Of
the law for that purpose. The intitulation should
be in this case H. ]. Coolidge VS.. Puaaik, and if
different habit has prevailed the entering Of cases
of this nature hereafter should be in accordance