The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-03-19
defendant for the replevin of said
goods.
By the Court, per McCaIy j.

I -
1t is not doubtful that the sale oil
aud traffic in spirituous liquors is Q
matter coming within the scope OF
the Police power of the State. II
is constitutionally lawful to impose
upon it many restrictions and regu-
lasions which are not imposed upon
the sale and traffic in other kinds OF
goods wares and merchandise.
1t is not doubtful that there may
be legislation to better prevent
illicit traffic in spirituous liquors,
and that such legislation may pro-
vide that spirituous liquors in trans
portation shall be labelled with the
name ana quantity thereof and with
the names of the shipper and con-
signee. In this regard no conten-
ton is made by the plaintiffs herein,
and the issue is not raised by the
specified points of law in the state
ment.
These points are two, the first
being that the seizure of plaintiffs
| property was in violation of his
constitutional rights in the prem
iseS, and that so much of Chapter
LNVII. of the Laws of 1883, as
purportS to authorize such seizure or
such judgment is unconstitutional.
The parts of this Act applicable are
Sections and 8, which provide
that liquors shipped shall be label
led with the name and quantity of
the liquor and the names of the
shipper and consignee, and that it
shall be lawful for any police officer
to seize and detain any liquor not
so marked, and that "any liquors
so seized may be declared by the
Court before which such case shall
be brought, to be forfeited to the
use of the Hawaiian Government"
The seizure was made without
warrant. This statute requires
none, and it cannot be maintained
that the statute is for that reason
unconstitutional. 1t must be, of
necessity, that many acts of seiz-
ure be authorized to be made
without a warrant, and no other
instance is a better illustration of
this rule of necessity than this case
of the summary seizure of goods
which are found in transit in viola
ton of prescribed regulations of
shipment. Chief Justice Shaw
says of this in Kennedy as. FaUor,
II Gray, 200, The authority to
seize liquors without a warrant,
though sometimes necessary, is a
high power, and being in deroga-
ton of common law right it is to be
exercised only where it is clearly
authorized by the statute or rule of
law which warrants it,
The seizure alone may be not
unreasonable" and not in viola
ton of the constitutional provision
against unreasonable seizure.
The real contention, in our APP
prehension, is that the statute is
unconstitutional in prescribing the
proceedings for condemnation and
so the seizure and judgment are in
pursuance of a statute Gnconstitu-
tional to,this extent, as conflicting
with Article 8, ono person shall
be deprived of his property without
due process of IaW,n
What is educ process of law"
has been set forth in many judicial
decisions, and is not of doubtful
import We may take the express
sion of Mr.. Justice Bronson in Tdy-
Tor Us. Porter, Hill 147 that % the
words cannot mean less than pros
ecution or suit conducted according
to the prescribed forms and solem-
mites for ascertaining guilt or de-
termining the title to property"
One of the essential forms and !
solemnities of trial is that the ac-
cused persons or the owners of |
seized property against which pro-
ceedingS are taken shall have notice |
and an opportunity of defence.
If the proceeding is in rem actual
notice mast be given to owners, or |
if they are not known, constructive
notice by a publication of notice,
which reasonably may inform them
of the tribunal, and of the time and
place when proceedings are TO be
had for condemnation.
The theory upon which a judg-
ments IN rem is regarded as being
binding upon all the world, is that
all the world have constructive no.
tiee of the seizure, with the cause
and purpose of the taking, and the
time and place at which any per-
son may appear before competent
tribunal and have a trial before the
of his property.
Fisher rs. McGirr, l Gray 30.
Hi6bord Us. The People, Mich.
126.
Audi alteram parton is a funda-
mental maxim. eTo be fully heard
in his own Defence" is guaranteed
by Art of the Constitution. This
is strictly applicable to proceedings
under this statute for it is essen
tally penal in its character. In
the case before US the claimant of
Tho rororar-T.- 1uo- 1,o+ oIIor-ad +r Ia