The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-07-02
sUPREE COURT OF THE HAWAIIAN
IsHNDS.-IN ADMIRALTY.
B~EroRrSIa. Jrsrlcz JrDD, At CHAMBERS
II. 4. p. Crtr. Attorney General. al sqferfu.
IS Steamship Mse-Foo.
Opinion pr the Cour..

CP"'fy" y me C0tTt.
This is a ibel and information in Admiralty
by the Aprney-Gensral against the Chinese
steamship "Mee-FoO," her tackle, apparel and
furniture, aeging that this steamship arrived in
the port Of IOnOlulu on the 2nd OF February last,
with G large number Of Chinese passengers on
board. someOf whom we're Ill and suffering from
the ~infectiou and dangerous disease of smallpox.
and that, tereupon, the vessel. her crew and
passengers 'ere placed in quarantine by the
Board of Hath. That, ihercupon. the vessel
became liahE % the Board Of Health and the
Government D pay all fhe expenses incurred BY
them in consequence ofthe quarantine that, in
order that thevessel might proceed on her voyage
to San Fraucico. it was agreed that she might
be released ouconditiOustnat the Agents Of the
steamship, Mssrs. Sin Chong ~ Co. and one
Loo Ngawk, nOuld enter into a bond to the
Minister Of tin Interior, and the President of the
Board Of Heabh, in the SIN of eight thousand
dollars. to becme void on the payment on de-
mand Of all expenses that might be incurred by
the obligee of he bond, as he might deem rea-
sonable and proper, in consequence Of tie
existence on. C by reason OF the introduction of,
the small-poxbj the said Steamship. That the
bond was exeated and the steamship released.
That the Bosd of Health have expended tho
sum of S5,II 50 in consequence Of the quar-
antine, and payment OF this sum has been de-
manded from ne 'obligOrs OF tue bond. who have
relQseQ 10 ON . ludl ne calu Steamship mas
returned to, an is now, in he port Of Honolulu,
and is by law GTaTged with and liable to pay this
demand. Theprayer Is for attachment for de-
cree for the SUI sum o. Sj,ll9 80, and that the
ship he condeuned and sold to pay this sum and
costs. The vessel wac attached, and released on
the filing of 6 satisfactory bond. The answer
Of the Master. among other Things, alleges that
the libellant il TINS case did, ON the 18th dav Of
May, bring 81 action IN the Supreme Court
against Sin Ching X Co. to recover the said sum
of S5,ll9 SOTO which they have pleaded. and
that said actIH is for the same identical causes
Of action in tip suit mentioned, and prays that
the libel may l. dismissed
An INSPECTION Of the record OF the suit referred
to, discloses tn it is an action by the Minister
of the InteriG and President Of the Board of
Health againstSIn Chong Il Co., and Loo Ngawk
to recover the sm of S5,ll9.50 expended by the
Board of Healtti in consequence Of the quarantine
OF the Alee-Fooa and for the payment of which the
bond of IS, 000was given by the defendants.
The questions if this libel shall be abated by
reason of the pndency Of the suit ut law.
In L. Bacon sAbridgement, p. %, the doctrine
of law appears = follows
1.-The law ahors multiplicity OF actions. and
therefore whenGcr it appears on record that the
plaintiff has sPd out two wrIts against the sam
defendant for he same thing, the second writ
shall abate." t is further there said that =. the
second writ INST plainly appear to be for the
same thing n the note to this text it l. said,
BY the sams cause of action is meant what
will be supportd by the same evidence
Chitty says, = In general tie tendency OF Il
former action IpIst be pleaded in abatement
Chitty, Pl. X Al.
In Commonwealth VS. 5 Mass. ia, Parson. C..
j., says Z. 1t is very we'll known that n man
cannot bring asecOnd action for the same cause,
for which he hs a prior action pending
The argumeit is made for the libellant that
these actions ire not identical, that a bond was
given to releasethc vessel, and that the condition
in this bond To-Day whatever expenses might be
incurred in consequence of the smallpox being
on the Mee-FO has not been fulfilled, and the
Government il omitted to it's original condition
and can now lold the steamship liable, a. it
could have primarily. IL seems to me that the
answer to this is the fact that the Government
did accept a Gnd in lieu of holding the vessel
and has brought its action on that bond to
recover the sn0hev, and cannot now assume it's
original position. Are the actions identical?
Both actions re brought by the Government, the
first one by the Minister of the Interior and
President of tie Board of Health for the Govern
ment, and tbs second is Il libel and information
by the Attorney Genera. in behalf of the King
and Governmnt. The first suit is against the
obligors of the bond, who are the agents of the
Mee-FOo but who substituted their personal
liability IN race of the vessel. This libel is
against the vessel herself. These differences are
technical. Tie two actions are by the same
party, the GoVrnment, to recover the same sum
of money expeded in the same behalf to-wit, the
expenses incurred by the Board Of Health IN
of the presence of the small poX in
the Mee-Foo.
To apply tn, test given in Bacon Abridge-
ment. the evidnce to support one case would
support the otter.
As l am of pinion that the previous action
now pending IS for the SAM thing us the one
now before me the present action must abate.
Decree accordingly.
y. Francis JUDD,
Justice Supreme Court.
+. Preston io' Lihellant. 4. s. IIartwell for