The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-03-02
OPINION OF THE COURT PER JUDD. c. ].

w REFER ~ llle OpIilOH dpI1edicu
from rendered by Mr.. Justice Dole
on the DIST December last, for a
statement of the facts set forth in
the bill and the points Of law raised
by the demurrer. 1t is as follows
The plaintiff is one of the Chinese
immigrants who ,me to Mahukona,
Island Of Hawaii, on the ship PactO-
lus last July and were landed there
under the provisions of * an act to
authorize the introduction of Chinese
agricultural laborers and to amend
chapter % Of the laws of 1897" en-
titled 'an act to regulate Chinese
immigration"
After argument the bill was
amended by plaintiff, the defendant
cOnsenting that the amendment be
flied subject to the demurrer.
The bill as amended complains
that in May last the plaintiff, then
native and resident of China, was
engaged by j.. Aseu, an agent for
the defendant, and his sub-agents
to come to this country and work on
month, which wages were promis-
ed him by the said agents of the
defendant; that under the induce
ment of such promise he came to
this country with others of his coun-
trymen; that prior to his leaving
China the defendant procured for
him permit to enter and reside
within this kingdom upon the terms
and conditions therein set forth, one
of which was to the effect that one
fourth Of the wages to be earned by
him should be retained by his en-
ployer and forwarded to the Board
of immigration until seventy-five
dollars should have been so accumu-
lated, to be returned by the said
board to him upon his leaving the
kingdom that upon arriving and
anchoring in the port of MahukOna,
he was informed by the defendant
and its agents that he must execute
written contract with the defend
ant, to serve it as plantation labor
er for a term of three years at wages
of fifteen dollars a month, but to
allow the defendant to retain three
dollars and seventy-fve cents a
month out of such wages until the
aggregate sum of seventy-five dollars
should have been so retained, and to
remit the same to the Board of Immi-
grafton for the purpose of paying
the PLAINTIFFS return passage to his
native country at the end of the
said term, and also should by the said
contract agree to such other stipula-
tions as are mentioned in chapter 81
of the laws of 1890 relating to
Chinese agricultural laborers, the
defendant claiming that the plain
tiff was bound by the said condition
of the said permit, and that the de-
PENDANT was thereby authorized to
retain the said sum out of the plain
tiff's wages as aforesaid. The plain
tiff further complains that he was at
the same time informed by the de-
PENDANT and its agents and by the
sheriff of Hawaii that unless he
should execute such contract he
would not be allowed to land but
would be sent back to China that
the said ship was not proVisioned
for such return voyage, and he was
informed by the said l.. Aseu, and
believed that if he should be sent to
sea on the said ship he would suffer
and perhaps die for want of food
and water, and by reason of such
information and belief he executed
such written contract, but under
protest that prior to the execution
thereof he had neither done nor
agreed to do nor authorized any one
on his behalf to do or agreed to do
anything where by he could or
should forfeit the rights secured by
the constitution and laws of the
Hawaiian Islands to all persons with
in the kingdom, and that the said
requirement of the said permit is
unconstitutional and void, and that
the said statements made to him as
aforesaid on board the said ship as
to the necessity of his execution of
such contract, and the consequences
which would ensue upon his refusal,
were not authorized by the Hawaii
an constitution and laws nor by any
act or default on his part, and that
by reason of the premises he was
misled and deceived into leaving
China and coming TO this country,
and the contract induced and made
as aforesaid is void and of no effect
and should be so decreed. The bill
further suggests that if it should
appear that the defendant is not re-
spOnsible for any of the said misre-
presentations, cOncealments or state
ments the contract must be deemed
to have been induced and made
under a mutual mistake of material
facts and of the constitutional and
legal rights and liabilities of the
plaintiff, and ought therefore to be
rectified as to cause it to conform to
the agreement under which he left
China, by striking out the said
stipulations of the nature of which
he was only informed after his
arrival in the Hawaiian Islands.
The prayer of the bill is for a de-
cree declaring the said requirement