The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1891-10-16

| magistrate, To-Day llleu lne loIloNlh my
decision in the Supreme Court in the
case of L. Aseu, charged with gross
cheat in obtaining signatures OF
Chinese to labor contracts under false
pretenses:
DECISION.
Four distinct charges for gross
cheat in obtaining by false pretense
with intent to defraud on or about
the goth day July, A. D. 1891, on
board the ship PactoIus while an
chored off Mahukona, the signatures
of certain parties to labor contracts.
1t was agreed to examine all of these
charges at one hearing.
Under the evidence for the prose-
cution it became question of law
whether the Misrepresentation al
legged to have been made by the de-
PENDANT, were ''false pretenses"
within the statute.
The evidence bearing on this point
is substantially as follows:
Sian Ung--Aseu asked me in
China if | would like to go to the
Sandwich Islands. He said, you
will get SIS a month and board and
work three years, that he would
furnish the passage money. AT
Mahukona he said if we refuse to
sign the contract there are no provi.
sions on board the ship and l will
turn the ship out to sea and starve
you all. | never heard that law
had been passed not allowing China
men to land. l refused to sign the
contract. We all agreed to work a
period of three years for SIS per
month and board without signing a
contract. At Mahukona it was inter
preted to us, that we were to sign for
three years and the expenses of COM
ing and going back to be deducted
from our wages, and we to board
ourselves.
Chung You-Aseu talked to me
while l was in Hongkong, the pay to
be Sl5 month and board, and said
that he would manage the passage
money and no contract required and
to work three years, after the expira-
ton of three years every one is set
free. saw Aseu at MahuLona, he
said every one must sign a contract
for 3 years at SIS per month without
board, he sent for Sal Chong and
stated that provisions are limited on
board. You will be sent out to sea
and starved to death. On that state
ment we signed the contracts.
Wong Kim Sow-Aseu talked to
me Gin China) about comirg. He
said that is a good place, that labor
ers are required to work on planta-
tions, that wages were SIS a month
and board. He did not say anything
about 1910 to be kept back. There
was nothing said in China about con-
tracts for three years.
The first two witnesses clearly
testify to mere promises and threats,
lie: 1T. That if they would come to
this country on three years engage
ment they would be furnished with a
free passage, and would receive
wages of SIS month and board, and
be free at the end of the term. I'd.
That at Mahukona if they refused to
sign contracts agreeing to work for
three years at SIS a month without
board, and to pay out of the wages
the expenses of coming from and
returning to China, they would be
sent to sea and starved to death.
The authorities agree that "any
representation or assurance in rela-
ton TO future transaction may be a
promise or covenant or warranty but
cannot amount to statutory false
pretense." (Com. V. Drew, 10 Pick
1856, Dillingham; v. State, Ohio st,
284, Ranney v. People, % N. Y.
AID TO falsely promise certain
wages with fraudulent intent to
obtain signature to written con-
tract, or to falsely threaten that if
such a contract is not signed the
person threatened will be sent to sea
and starved, may be wicked, but
cannot be made the foundation of a
criminal prosecution under our sta
tute of gross cheats.
The counsel for the prosecution
contends that the evidence of one of
the witnesses-W Wong Kim Sow
shows that defendant made false
representations to him in China Of
the existing state of things here lie.
that Hawaii was good country for
labor, that it needed laborers, that
there was good pay, that the price
offered for labor was SIS a month
and board. 1t is doubtful if the
latter assurance, "that the price Of
fered for labor was SIS month and
board, which is the only one of
these alleged statements which
would be regarded as misrepresen-
tation, referred to the existing state
of wages here. 1t is far more likely,
judging from the Immediately suisse
quent evidence, lie. ''he did not say
anything about 1915 (the monthly
deduction for return passage) to be
kept back" and the evidence of the
other witnesses in regard to similar
negotiations, that the defendant was
offering terms, which, if accepted,
were to be carrie dout afterward, lie.
on the arrival of the witness in this
country; in which case it was mere
prOmise-a false promise, it may be.