The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-08-02
MUST PAY LICENSE.
Justice Dole Upholds the Drum
ueYs' License Law.

Justice Dole has decided that
the law compelling commercial
drummers to take out a license is
good. The title of the case is SIN
the matter of the bankruptcy
Of William H. Daniels; proof of
claim CT Buckingham & Hecht,
foreign creditors"
DECISION.
The claim of Buckingham & Hecht,
a San francisco firm, was formally
proved May 4, 1891. Afterwards, to
wit, November 25, 1891, on motion OF
the assignee, the proof of this claim
was vacated by the order of the Court
IN order that the assignee might con-
test the same A hearing was had
April s, 1892, in which evidence was
taken, by which it appeared that an
agent of the claimants named Young
came to Daniels in 1890 and solicited
orders from him on the claimants.
and succeeded in obtaining An order
for shoes to the amount of $1O6l9O,
which is the present claim. The
goods were delivered in two lots.
The assignee contends that the
contract of sale was void under
Chapter 55 of the Laws of 1888, en-
titled San Act to regulate the sale OF
goods, wares and merchandise IN
this kingdom by commercial travel
ing agents from foreign countries
This Act provides that agents Of for
eign dealers shall not be allowed tc
sell goods in this country without
first fling In the Interior Office 6
statement OF the name, place and line
of business Of their principals, anc
taking ont a license, the fee fol-
which is fixed at $500 for doing bust
ness IN Honolulu and at $3.50 for Other
parts Of the Kingdom; and that any
such agent who shall sell goods il
this country for foreign dealers with
out such license shall be liable to ;
fine Of $500.
The purpose of this law is rathe
to protect local dealers than for rev
enue-to prohibit sales by foreigi
drummers without such burdens o
high license fees which would pu
their principals, who pay no take
here, approximately upon par witt
the business men of the country
This being the case, the contract i
void unless it can be shown that MI
Young took out a license under tn
requirements of the statute. No sue
showing has been made though
license was filed, issued to Mr.. Younl
on the 9th day of June, 1890, author
izing him to open and keep whole
sale store in Honolulu. This llcens
does not come under the statut
above referred to, and there is u
evidence that Mr.. Young ever opene
such a store or did business for hin
self in this country.
ssWhen a contract Is prohibite
whether expressly or by implication
it is illegal and cannot be enforced
OF this there is no doubt" (Benji
min on Sales, section $50 and case
cited.
@Where a contract is prohibited b
statute, it is immaterial to lnqull
whether the statute was passed IL
revenue purposes OAiS "a ~ -"
other object. 1t is enough that pa
lament has prohibited it, and 1t
therefore void"
"Whep the question is whether
contract has been prohibited b
statute, it is material, In construln
the statute, to ascertain whether Il
legislature had in view solely tt
security and collection OF the re
enue, or had in view, in whole or
part, the protection of the publ
from fraud in contracts or the pr
/. motion of some object OF publ
policy. In the former case, the
ference is that the statute was n
intended to prohibit contracts; in i
latter, that it was" Oh, section 90
/ therefore refuse to admit t
claim.
w. r. Castle for claimants; A.
Hartwell for assignee.
Honolulu, June 29th, 1892.