The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-03-19

Inc tOllOWlDg Is the SUBMISSION
in this case: alt is hereby respect
fully represented unto your Honors,
by the undersigned, c. Now KeunC
and Chang Ping, partners in bust
ness under the firm name of Wing
Wo Chan & Company, of Honolulu,
herein called the plaintiffs, and c.
W. Ashford, Acknowledgement OF
the Kingdom, acting for and on be-
half OF the Hawaiian Government,
herein called the defendant, as fol-
lows, 10 wit:
/. That said plaintiffs are and
were on November 9TH, instant,
licensed wholesale dealears in spirit
uous liquors, conducting business as
such, at said Honolulu.
>. That on, TO wit, the fifth day
of November aforesaid, the plain
lifts at said Honolulu, billed and
shipped by the steamer Likelike,
"a steamer engaged in the carrying
trade between certain of the ports
of this Kingdoml certain, 10 wit,
nine packages or cases of spirituous
liquor, with intent that the same
should be carried and conveyed by
and upon said steamer, to the port of
Kahului, in the Island of Maui, and
there delivered to some third person
or persons, to wit, to certain con-
signees, 10 wit, to one All Nee, of
Waikiki, in said Island of Maui,
who then and there was and now is
licensed to sell spirituous liquors at
retail.
8. That said spirituous liquor was
not when 80 billed and shipped as
aforesaid. or at any time since then
nor was any of it, nor Were the
packages or cases containing the
same, or any Of them plainly label
led. or labelled at all in the English
or Hawaiian language, with the
name or names of the shipper
thereof, or with the name or guam
tity of the said spirituous liquor,
but the initials Of the shippers
name, TO wit, w. W. c." were
labelled thereon.
I. That the said spirituOus liquor
was. on to wit. the date aforesaid,
at said Honolulu, and after it had
been Sc billed and shipped as afore-
said, seized by certain police Off
GERS, for the reason that the same
was not labelled as required by law,
but no sworn complaint or writ,
warrant or other process was made
or issued concerning or authorizing
such seizure.
). That after such seizure, said
spirituous liquors seized as afore-
said were carried before the Police
Court Of Honolulu, with a request
3 on the behalf of said Gov
that the same should be
declared forfeited 10 the use OF the
Government.
s. That on TO wit, the fifteenth
day of November, instant, after the
hearing of evidedce in this behalf,
an order and judgment were rem
dered, in and by said Police Court,
wherein and whereby said spiritu-
Gus liquors seized as aforesaid were
declared forfeited to the use Of the
Hawaiian Government, for the rea-
son that the said liquors when so
billed and shipped as aforesaid,
were not labelled as by law re.
quired.
:. That said liquors declared as
to be forfeited are now in
the custody of the Marshal OF the
Kingdom, who is about to sell the
same, under the claim that he is so
instructed by law.
Wherefore the said plaintiffs
claim as follows: said defendant
resisting each such proposition,) to
wit:
First. That such said seizure of
plaintiffs said property was in vio-
alton of plaintiffs constitutional
rights in the premises, and that so
much of Chapter LNVII. Of the
Laws of 1883, or Of any other stat
Ite of this Kingdom as purports to
authorize such seizure or such |
is unconstitutional and |
void.
Second. That, even if sush seiz- |
Ire or judgment were constitutional,
he said Police Court Of Honolulu |
lad no authority to entertain said /
to forfeit said liquors as
aforesaid, or to declare the same |
'orfeited to the use OF the Hawai- |
an Government.
Third. That the said Marshal, in /
behalf of the Hawaiian Govern /
nent, now illegally retains in his
possession the said property of said /
plaintiffs, and that the Hawaiian
is not entitled 10 the
lse or proceeds thereof.
And so the said parties submit
he above facts for the decision of
-our HonOrs, hereby further repre-
enting that said reeited facts con-
titute a real controversy between
hem, and that these proceedings
re undertaken in good faith, TO
determine their respective rights in
he premises.
If the said Justices or a majority