The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1879-02-08
The MINISTER OF The INTERIOR, sAUUEL c. WILDER, VS..
HEsRY BRADLEY AND HENRY MACFARLASE.
APpeaI from Me Police Justice Of NonoIuln.

1Ppedl from he Police Justice Of Honolulu.
The defendant Bradley holds a retail liquor license, under
which he keeps the keystone Saloon" on the corner Of Fort
and King streets, in Honolulu. The other defendant is the
from the lceasee before issuing the license. The defendant
Bradley having been convicted Of the offence Of smuggling
forfeiture Of the license and The recovery of the penalty of the
during the continuance Of This license the said Henry Bradley
shall not contribute TO the violation Of any Of the laws Of this
this obligation shall be voId.'
The Altorney-General claims that the conviction of Bradley
OF the violation OF any law OF the Kingdom is cause for the re-
coyery OF the penalty Of the bond and forfeiture of the license.
He claims that, for instance, il the hcensee should violate the
law Of the Kingdom respecting furious riding, shooting plover
out Of season, storing kerosene in larger quantities than the
retail liquor on certain designated premises is recoverable
lgai n tb nim ,ts ana as she5 in M, s1rs,yi =, H Ieaa1 a,s the plain in mean mean;
rules, we shall not hesitate TO declare and enforce it.
1916. which preceded the bond now in use, which provides,
1.-The shall not contribute by such retailing to any violation
the words ., by such retailing I" from the later bond, that the
legislature has shown its intention not to limit causes o. for
fixture to violations OF law by the retailing OF liquor, but to
make all violations OF statutes Of the Kingdom causes Of for
ieiiure, wherever committed, and without respect TO a connec-
The argument from the omission OF the limiting phrase has
force, and in our opinion the existing statute is modified some
what by i, as we shall remark hereafter.
will be evident by examination OF the terms Of the license
and the bond, that the bond is given to provide for the careful
pPoTi.ion 81 OF r the eq ls~ss 81 + ! is se 3 basin egsO which Ti5hi tends a t SaI,19s
morality, and it is therefore restricted as the sale OF other mer-
chandise is not. Some of the modes by which a retail liquor
saloon might promote a violation OF law and the public peace
are specifically mentioned in the license and bond, such as the
assembling OF native women or girls in the building or on the
premises. and gaming OF all descriptions. And there are also
statutes in terms prescribing regulations & retail liquor deal
es. The bond Is ihe assurance by a penalty upon the licensee
and some other and responsible person, that the business of
this saloon will be conducted legally with respect 10 such pro-
visions Of law as are specified, and generally with respect 10 all
the statute laws Of the Kingdom.
In view Of the context Of the license law, il cannot be held
that this is the bond Of the principal and surety for the gene
raj legal conduct Of the licensee, irrespective Of The business, so
that in all parts Of the Kingdom where he might happen TO be
during the year Of his license, he would be held and his surety
be held with him under a penalty in addition TO the penalty
prescribed for any specific offence of which he might be con-
victed.
We consider the words " contribute to the violation OF any
law " TO have their own appropriate force, and that they are
not equivalent to " be convicted Of the violation Of any law"
To illustr ate what might be a violation of law by the aid Of
the privileges granted by the license, let u. take the offence Of
smuggling brandy. The possession Of casks of brandy would
not be a suspicious circumstance against a person holding a
liquor license. A dealer may safely receive and keep in his
premises and dispose OF the liquor which he has smuggled or
received from a confederate smuggler, and so his license facili'
tates and contributes TO a violation Of law. Although the
phrase Z" by such retailing" has been stricken out, and so il is
not necessary TO prove that the retailing contributed to the
offence, the general provision and intent of The law remain,
that the hcensee shall not contribute the aid and operation Of
his business to the violation of any law. 1t has not been
shown that a liquor seller has any facilities for dealing in
opium. liza case should occur where il was shown that the
smuggling or sale or use OF opium, either smoked or drank az
laudanum, was covered or aided by a saloon license, we might
hold that the penalties here claimed as for a contribution to
the violation of law would then be due.
The judgment OF the Police Court is set aside and judgment
here entered for the defendants.
Attorney-General Preston for the plaintiff. J. NJ. Davidson
for the defendants.