The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1882-04-22
Intermediary our
Before His Honor Judge AUSTIN.
ThuradaT. March 30th.

heard and judgment deferred. On April 7th the
following judgment was given:
THIS " an action 70 recover balance Of wages
Claimed 81 be due Mana, n South Sea Islander
under contract Of sergice with the defendant.
bearing date April Ssh, 1880. At the time Of
the making OF the Contract che was a married
woman. vile Of Dick, vino entered the same
service and died in the summer Of 1880. There
after Mana served Till on or about October 9Th,
1881. and was then again married. At the time
ot her last marriage, wages were nomInaliy due
her uu account Of her services which u was
agreed should be tor three years at the rate Of
81 a month for the bret year. 50 a month Tor the
2d year. and 40 u month tor the Sd year.
1T the time the agreement was signed by
the defendant be paid $50 to the plaintiff toward
reimbuTsing tie Government FOR passage money
Ut Mana from the South Sea Islands, Il foreign
country, where tie original c0ntract Tor service
with Mana was Ia de by the plaintiff Tor the term
above specified. Section l4lS "i the Civil Code
declHre-- that ali engagements ut service con-
trueted IA n ipreIsn country 10 be executed IN this
unless the same be ia cOntrayentIon Oi the laws
1f this, sb1Ebe binding here unless for more
t!Ian ten yesF, aud then Ouly for that time.
Section 2 % esp. 81 Lave Of 1872 provides that
no Contract OF n married woman to serve another
shall be valid 10 law unless separated from her
husband by decree Of a court 81 Competent JurIs-
dlctipn. The contract made with Mana by the
plaintiff was therefore void and she was not
bound 10 perform a.. The COurt- have not two
methods or Constituting foreign and domestic con-
AAAeN7a AAhAAENtAAN u WIZ d71ahAeA ~ VIZ 1865 ~
the Tact shows that the service agreed upon would
be faithfully begun. But n disastrous change
sOOn occurred to Mana. Her husband died.
Thereafter she continued TO serve and receive
wages under the CONTRACT signed by her and, by
this ! think. il was ratified, and became valid in
the hands Of the defendant against her as n single
woman. Section l Of the Laws Of 1872 last re-
ferred TO. further provides that IN case amy wo-
man shall contract marriage while under con-
tract To serve another, tile marriage shall operate
To nnnul said contract Of service From the time
Of the second marriage then the contract OF Mana
was void. Had Mana ia that contract sti ulated
not 10 marry during It's term. the stipulation
would have been void, as IN restraint OF mar
rage and against public policy in all civilized
countries (see Parsons on Contracts vol. l p 500.
Especially in this Kingdom, by every govern
mental utteranee. the marriage Of its subjects IS
commended and fostered.
By has agreement with the Board Of Immi-
grafton tile defendant assumes all the chances
Of its termination and among others that it may
terminate a. il has by the marriage OF Mana. In
the contract between the plaintiff and defendant
it wa agreed that il shall be the right OF the
said Board l. Of Immigration at any time during
the time IN this agreement stipulated Tor Is
duration, upol the representation OF the said
Mana to cancel this contract Tor any cause
deemed by the said Board to be sufficient, re-
fanding to the said r. McKibben such proper
UiOnaI sum Of the amount advanced as the unex-
pired portion OF the time Of service agreed may
bear 10 the whole time This 10 the only pro-
vision Tor relunding contained in the contract.
Under IL the defendant claims "a an Offset to the
plaintiff > claim for wages OF Mana the sum OF
$25 which - the proportion OF the whole sum
OF $50 advanced by him, which the unexpired
term Of service bears to the whole term. l think
the defendant il not entitled TO this set OF. The
Board makes no claim. The contract expires as
n matter Of law. The Board are willing for the
contract to continue. bat Mana is not, and the
Government policy approves her act. The pay
ment Of $50 made by defendant was in no sense
an advance. IL was IN the nature OF a premium
EOr what was supposed TO be a valuable contract.
Had the whole term been served by Mana there
would be no pretence Of claim TO recover any part
Of the $50. If there had been a direct engage
ment by or for Mana that any part paid should
be returned AZ she should not serve the whole
specified term. even then l think in this case TO
adiudge IL against Mana would be against public
policy, where the contract is annulled by direct
statute law. To annul is TO reduce TO nothing
No yesIige Of the object stricken remains. Where
as here the contract IS annulled by superior
authority, and not by mutual consent, not even
eauity can intervene % sage a shred for the party
Injured.
.sHad Mana's wages sought TO be recovered by
the plaintiff been actually paid over to her in full
up to the time Of her marriage, the amount OF the
set of claimed by the defendant. as above spoken
Of. could not have been recovered by him, nor
can IL now be allowed. Mana is entitled 10 her
wages. and the plaintiff has a right to sue Tor
them under the contract
ss There - another item OF set on cialmeus De-
inc $40 for clothing lost or stolen from the wash
house whilst Mana had charge OF them. The value
as agreed ON. The facts proved show carelessness on
The part Of Mann with regard to the clothing.
s5he was bound to ordinary care, and | think the
,prOof shows she did not exercise it, so this part
sf the set off must be allowed.
~ The plaintiff may enter Judgment against the
deaDda1E for $25 and costs"
Tuesday, March 3lst.
- ard % Immigration vs.. Kunuiakea. APP
neal n IN District Justice Of Honolulu. There
rere tw5 cases, one brought ON behalf OF Bila
and the otter on bshrjG Of Iona. A full report
~ the nroce.dinss ia Judge Bickerton's Court
wa- given in the Z. c.. AbSERTIsER at the time.
Iudgnent was then sigen against Mr.. hunuia-
kea aua-hing the contracts aud hxlng the sums
due To the eomplainAnts. A genef1i appear was
made, but subsequently, the exceptions 70 the
,ouashinv of the contncE we're Withdrawn, and
only the question as TO how much was Que 10
Ria and Iona came under the consideration OF
the higher Court. The evidences apa argument
we're taken this day (3lss nareel ana judgment
These suits are for wages Claimed Que 20
South Sea ISLANDERS, Bila and Iona, husband and
vile. who worked under written contract ESde
by plaintif CThe BoaTd) for them with defendant
The cases were tried and considered together Oy
consent
=. The first question Is one Of law as to when
The Term OF service for which defendant 10 liable,
began. The contracts are dated Aprl ~, 1851
This was the day BIla and Iona arrived IN homo
min By the contracts with the plaintiff they
we're entitled To wages from that day. The de-
PENDANT assumed To carry out these contracts. and
40 / think he - bound to pay from April 2Oth,
"a the Board are. tie claims he should only be
charged from May l2th. 1881, the day he proves
thew actually began to work for him l think
his claim cannot be allowed
The defendant charges Bila with 50 days not
,worked and iona with II days not worked, and
charges Bila with Sl9.s5 and iona with 1878
cash and articles claimed to be furnished them
from time 70 time. BiIa admits that he did not
work a month during the term, and admits
"a 6o a items furnished. iona admits a charge
Of IS IS for not working and $3.50 items fur
nisbsd. Bia and Iona were unlettered rude peO-
- l. m nconrnf No satfIament MPs ever