The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1877-03-17
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Island.
REx VS.. PUAAIK AND REX vs.. KEA. APPEAL
TO SUPREME CoURr IN BANco.


TO SUPREME CoURr IN BANco.
Before Harris, C. j., Judd and Mccully, J. J.
(Hesrd by consent in vacation)
These are two actions originally brought in the
Police Court Of Honolulu on contracts for labor; the
first contract being for n term Of FIVE months. dated
the Sd Of November, 1876, at Sl2 per month, upon
which an advance Of $50 is acknowledged to have
been received; aud the second is dated the 18th Of
November, 1876, for twelve months, At $40 per
month, upon which an advance Of $50 has been re-
ceived. The first one is signed by II. j. Coolidge.
per NJ. A. Coolidge; and the second signed by Ii. ].
Coolidge.
1t is made to appear that. at the time Of signing
the contract with Puaaiki, Mr.. Coolidge was out Of
the country, temporarily, and had left his plantation
in charge Of his wife, who conducted all the bust
ness. and carried on the plantation generally.
Now Il Is said that this contract is not binding
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 20 the penal
terms of the 1923 Section of the Civil Code. which
enacts that if, on 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 laborer shall be discharged from all obligations
of service, aud the master shall be fined Ia n sum not
less than five nor more than one hundred dollars,
and in default Of the payment thereof be imprisoned
at hard labor until the same is paid" fNa
1t is not alleged that there has been any violation
Of any terms Of the contract on the part of the en-
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
The point in the case seems to be that there is no
denial Of Mrs. Coolidge's authority, but on the con-
trary an admission Of it, and indeed an express
recognition of it by her husband in this and similar
cases after his return. She was acting as manager
Of the plantation during her husbands absence and
did all the duties Of q manager.
Now if we were TO hold that il was necessary for
her to have an authority in writing TO do this espec-
ial act Of hiring labor, II would be necessary for any
other manager TO have il. The employment Of labor
seems to fall within her authority as manager, and IL
she were lawfully authorized TO act AZ manager, it
was 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 no
failure OF " mutually Of contract, and, indeed,
Mr.. Coolidge's subsequent adoption of her acts was
equivalent to his previous authority. There seems to
have been q mistake made az the argument in the
idea that this act did not fall within her authority az
wife. Neither did it, but il did fall within her au-
thority as manager Of the plantation, and in our
opinion. even bound her husband TO the penalties OF
the 1923 Section, so far as they could be enforced ut
any time against the owner of any plantation. IL
will be observed that the imprisonment clause in
said Section is a mere means Of enforcing the pay |
ment Of the fine. The question rassd under the
1923 Section seems to be not of much weight, for il
would be impossible to imprison an absentee owner |
agent keeps all the terms Of the contract the other
party to the contract would be bound by il.
Secondly, il is said that the contract is not bind
ing on the defendants, because the agent, G.. Bsrena-
ba, who took the acknowledgment TO the contract
was appointed some days before the law could 20
effect, to wit on the 2Sth Of September.
1t ID alleged that the law under which this ac-
knouledgTnent was taken and which is amendatory
Of the Act Of the 29th Of July, 1872, passed His
Majesty's signature on the 25th Of September, 1876,
md was not published until the 11th Of October,
and therefore could not come into operation until the
Of October, whence an argument is drawn that
he aUnointmNnt of fhe agent Wh0 tonk tha aaknowI- Il
Of the contract Of Puaaiki was imperative
void. and continued so for all time.
Whether the argument to the effect that this par
law could not 20 iuto operation until ten
after its publication on the Island OF Oahu, is
Tslid or invalid, it is certain that the law had gone
INTO operation on the Sd day OF November, at which
the acknowledgement was taken; and the 4th
Section OF the Civil Code, which is referred to, can
1ot in any way affect the authority OF government TO
Ippoint officers under a law which is TO 20 into oper-
Ition within ten days. And clearly il is the duty Of
to appoint officers in such time that they
nay be ready to carry out the provisions of the Law
shen it shall come into force. And il IL proper
hat the public may have seasonable notice Of the
,erson 30 authorized. The Law itself (eection a
ays that its object is 20 put . limit 10 the time,
shen Ignorance Of the law may be plead as a
Iefence, #H
Thirdly, it Is urged against these contracts that
hey do not indicate in what labor the defendants
re to be employed. and that they are not sufficiently
.Farticular with regard to the place Of performing
NC ioOSAf ~ ~ u DcOhAOn u 41OAC4 " huppOIt 1
hat proposition. The section reads a. follows:
Any person who has attained the age Of twenty
ears, may bind himself or herself. by written con-
to serve another in any art. trade. profession
r other employment. for any term not exceeding
We years."
Puaaiki's contract reads that the said party Of the
econd part promises to perform such labor for Il. J.
or his agent in the district Of Koolaupoko, ,
.lsnd Of Oahu, az the said party Of the first part ;
hall direct. This is o clear contract to perform
srvices as q general laborer or servant; and the
hawaiian version which is not q literal rendering
IS il ought to be ~perhaps) has II "ma ka mahiai.
~ that lie TO say, I" farming, etc. - and the place !
esignated in Puasiki's contract Is in the district Of :
.oolaupoko. This is o clear contract TO perform
,asonabls, ordinary sots Of labor as he may be !
lrected in the employers usual and ordinary ]
nsiness.
Now, there is no allegation that the men have [
cen required to perform any unusual and extra
Urinary labor. The most that can be said Of the {
attracts is that they are loose as far as regards the J
yle of labor to be performed and were probably !
cant to be so by both parties,-so likewise with c
gard to the place where it was to be performed.
be laborers signed the contract intelligently and !
lere is no allegationmade that either Of the J
arties here have been sent to any place OF sub I
cted to any exposure which was not reasonably Q
lntsmplated by themselves when they signed the .