The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-11-12
Supreme Court OF tho Hawaiian Islands
October Term, 1884. In Banco-
The BOARD OF IM,ueRATIoN vs.. BENITo
TEIxEIRA DA EsTRRLIA.


Of The Court by Judd Z. j.
This case comes up by appeal of the |
plaintiff from decision of Hon. c. F.
Hart, Circuit Judge of the Island of Ha-
waiii, in favor of defendant
It appears by the record that the defend
ant signed contract in writing ON the
9th of May, 1881, at the Island of st. Mi
chaels, wherein it is stated that he is de
sirous of emigrating to the Hawaiian
Islands, there to be employed under the
direction of the Board of Immigration of
the Hawaiian Kingdom, and in considers
ton of facilitating treceiving) passage
to the Hawaiian Islands on board the bark
SuSolt, and further undertaking that the
Board of Immigration will pay or cause to
be paid to him certain wages, and other
undertakings as to board, lodging, medical
attendance, etc, etc, therein mentioned,
the defendant agreed to "dnly and faith
fully perform such lawful and proper la
Dor as he may be directed to perform, under
the auspices of the Board of immigration
for and during the space of five years next
succeeding the date Of the commencement
of such service after arrival in the Hawai-
ian Kingdom-it being always understood
that he shall not be compelled to labor on
Sunday or any holiday recognized by the
Government, and that his services shall
not be transferred without his consent,
etc, etc,
1t also appears that the defendant ar
rived at Honolulu, and was by written
agreement, executed August 23d, 1881, by
the President of the Board of Immigration
and the Star Mill Co, directed to labor for
the said Star Mill Co of Kohala, Hawaii
In this agreement the Star Mill Co.
agree to pay the wages, and to perform
the other stipulatlons in favor of defend
ant originally promised, and agreed upon
by the Board of immigration. The Star
Mill Co. agrees that the contract for the
service of the said Benito Teixeira da Es-
| trella shall not be transferred to any third
party during the term of this contract
without the consent of the said Board of
Immigration, or its agent. The Board re
serves the right, on the representation of
the laborer to cancel the contract for any
cause deemed by the Board to be sufficient
and to refund proportionate amount of
the money advanced by the Star Mill Co.
"But if the agreement shall be cancelled
by a magistrate, for non-fulfillment, or
| violation of any of the conditions of the
agreement on the part of the said Star
| Mill Co. then no refunding will take
place"
The defendant went to Kohala under
the direction above made, and has worked
there for the Star Mill Co. for portion of
the stipulated time. On the oath July,
1884, he left his work, and was brought up
before the Police Justice of North Kohala,
and by him tried and Judgment rendered
ordering him to return to the labor of the
Star Mill Co. He thereupon appealed to
Circuit Judge Hart. A power of Attorney
from the President of the Board of Immi
grafton to g. R. Ewart, manager of Star
Mill was introduced, by which the Board
authorizes G.. r. Ewart to prosecute and
defend in the name of the Star Mill Co.,
or in the name of the Board of hmm gTa-
ton, all cases and actions in which Portu-
guese and other laborers shall be party,
etc, and more especially those laborers
under contracts, set over by the Board of
immigration to the Star Mill Co. The
defendant claimed that he went to work
at Kohala, for Mr.. D. r. Vida, who, it
seems was then the manager of the Star
Mill Co. The Circuit Judge was unable to
ascertain from the papers presented who,
if the defendant was bound servant, is his
master, who, for possible breach of con
tract, may be sued fined and imprisoned.
The point was also made that the contract
was not acknowledged before duly ap-
pointed agent, and that the contract was
not stamped as required by the laws OF
Portugal
We deem that the above full statement
of the case is necessary in order to ascer-
tain the legal status of the defendant.
Our statutes recognize two classes OF
labor contracts which may be enforced
under our somewhat peculiar labor laws
One class is of contracts made in this coun-
try, and the other class is of those made
in foreign country, to be executed in
this. The former class is authorized by
Section 1417, which reads as follows:
ANY person who has attained the age
of twenty years, may bind himself or her
self, by written contract, to serve another
in any art, trade, profession or other EN-.
ploymept, for any term not exceeding five
years" The second class is recognized
by Section 141S of the Civil Code which
reads as follows:
"All engagements of service contracted
in foreign country, to be executed IL
this, unless the same be in contravention
of the laws of this, shall be binding here
provided however that all such arrange
ments made for longer period than ter
years, shall be reduced to that limit, t.
! count from the day of the arrival of the
, person bound, in this Kingdom"
i The contract in this case is one made al
st. Michaels Ia foreign country between
the Board of immigration and the defend
ant. 1t is recognized by Section 141S
above quoted. 1t is not necessary to thC
: validity of this contract that it be acknowl
edged. The law requires "all contract:
for service authorized by Section 1417 O.
! the Civil Code" to be acknowledged: (Com
: piled Laws p. 1879 but these are domestic
+ contracts only, and there is no statute re
quiring that contracts executed III for
eign country shall be acknowledged eithel
in the country where made or upon arriva
in this Kingdom.
An acknowledgment to contract is fol
D the purpose of facilitating the proof of it,
: execution: such is the effect given to it BY
r the law: Section 5 of the Act of 1872
o Compiled Laws p. 1851 In the absenc,
e of statutory requirement to this effect, {
t contract would be perfectly good withou
an acknowledgment.
Under an Act authorizing the AIlniste
Of the Interior to appoint agents in eacl
election district to take acknowledgement
= to labor contracts he could not appoin
: agents to act in foreign country. If sucl
were appointed his certificate would ado
nothing of value to the contract, and if tn
! contract was invalid, such an acknowledge
/ ment would not make it valid
5 But the fact that the defendant mad
9 and entered into this contract is not dis
puted by him. The copy before the Cour
o was introduced by him and he has in pun
e suance of the contract received the benef
!, of passage to this country and has work
d ed under it for some years.
= We pass the question suggested wheth
d er the contract is in conformity with tn
c laws of Portugal, the dominion where
e was made, with the remark that we hav
! no evidence before us as to what tn
, laws of that country are or what they re
! quire.
A foreign law relied upon as defens
+ must be proved like any other fact in tn
a case.
q Firth VS.. Sprague, IA Mass. 455.
Owen VS.. Boyle, Is Me. lat.
|, United States VS.. Virgins, Ia Peters 1874
: Cutler vs. Wright, % N. Y. 472.
n Murphy vs. Collins, III Mass. g.
: But if the law of Portugal applicable t