Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1881-03-05

he defined and certain that no error could be
made. Lastly, he saw no averment in the libel. on
which the Court could pronounce sentence of for
fixture. If any gentleman connected with the
Government caused the vessel to enter the harbor.
the master was not responsible who brought the
SAID steamer within the harbor of Honolulu The
statute says the disease must be introduced into
the kNgoiom. He wanted to know what he had TO
meet. A copy of the health certificate should be
appended to the libel. If a man was brought up
for forging document, the paper must be pro
duced. 1t is monstrous to cause n person to
answer charge of making false certificate unless
that certificate is set forth. lie contended there
was difference between the public treasury and
the general government He prayed that the libel
be dismissed.
ing and he understood that AZ civilization ad-
yanced, pleadings becoming less technical
and more liberal and sensible. He considered the
criticism of his learned friend unfair and illberal
You must take the context of the pleadngs as well
as the context of the law. The first exception
taken is re the Attorney General The Attorney
Sec. b. and he, Mr.. Davidson, was employed az
advocate in the matter, which was right to be
inferred from the maxim, qniJ per alum, facet
the same forfeiture for the benefit of the Ha.
waiian Government, and the language of the libel
means that II had been said that the suit must be
brought by the Minister of Finance, but the law
gave here no right to bring such suit The statute
gave the Minister of Finance power over suits for
forfeiture OF property and ships violating the
revenue laws, but in proceedings of this nature he
considered the Attorney General the proper person
to conduct the suit 1t il his duty to bring forward
all actions relating to the interests of the country
In referring to the statement that this suit should
not be brought before an Admiralty Court, but be-
fore Court of Equity he commended that the lat
ter could not pronounce sentence Of forfeiture,
therefore It was necessary TO establish Admiralty
Courts with power OF forfeiture, and he believed
Jurisdiction WAS conferred the Court by the
express letter of the law. The learned coun-
sel contends that the libel is vague and I'M
certain, but every material fact is set forth.
1t contains narrative of the events from
which the right, of action arose. Repeti.
ton does not add to that which in we'll said
The old mode of pleading has passed away, and a
distinct manner of announcing facts has been
substituted in its stead. He denied that know
ledge on the part of the captain should have been
alleged. II the captain negligent, he was guilty
of culpabe and criminal ignorance. 1t WAS his duty
before he came to this port to know the sanitary
condition of his vessel and negectine that duty he
IL liable to the law and should pay the penalty.
He cited the case of the Nebraska. The excep-
tons are technical and frivolous But if the Court
should find the libel insufficient the right to
amend would follow as . matter of course and
was right under the law G. G. 1145 The
libel articulates sufficient facts to let the Court
know the nature of the offense. He therefore
asked the Court to sustain this libel and dismiss
the exceptions.
Mr.. Hartwell agreed with his learned friend as
to propriety and liberal rules of pleading, but he
loved correctness and exactness in the language
used.
Justice McCully said, he would examine the
authorities. He had arrived ut a conclusion with
regard to part of the exceptions. The health GER
libel failed to show that disease has been brought
into this Kingdom by the SeptiNn. Judgment to
dismiss this libel is in favor of the ibellant I'M
less they assumed the responsibility of holding
the vessel.
Mr.. Davidson said he would prefer to take the
responsibility to the libel being dismissed.
His Honor delivered the following judgment :
dismissed"