The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-06-21

ne pltls III case 10 QltISTS III app
pearance from those in case I0I.
The conduct of the claimant inn
porter throws a serious doubt upon
the question of his knowledge that
the pills in case l0l contained
opium.
I therefore declare forfeit case
10l aud contents and release the
rest of the invoice. The claimant
to pay costs.
l have not touched upon the al
legged differentiation OF the peanut
oil In the invoice, because it Is not
made a ground Of condemnation in
the libel, and moreover the evidence
is that So in U. S. gold per case
would be about the value of the ar
tlcle in Hongkong in Mexican sill
ver."
By THE COURT.
The question now before us is,
should all the merchandise and
packages described in the invoice
be conf1scated as we'll as case 101,
or is the case containing the pills
only liable to forfeiture?
This proceeding is brought under
chapter section 3 of the Session
Laws of 1886, which reads:
"If any goods or articles prohibit
ed from being imported by any pri-
vate persons shall be found in any
ship within the limits of any port
of this Kingdom, such goods and
articles and the packages contain
ing the same and all merchandise or
part of the invoice in which such
goods and articles were imported,
shall be forfeited"
The facts necessary to bring this
case within that statute have been
clearly shown, in fact they are
practically admitted by the claim
ant. The language of this law is
plant and unambiguous; it is per-
emptory; ii is only capable of one
construction, viz: the articles lin
this case opium pills. and the pack
ages containing the same shall be
forfeited, also all the remainder of
the merchandise in the invoice in
which the articles and goods were
imported shall also be forfeited.
This is the law as we find it on the
statute book; we cannot legislate or
vary the law. 1t may perhaps in
some cases work hardship, but the
claimant is not without means of
relief. Section $50, compiled Laws,
reads:
"Any person who has incurred
any fine, penalty or forfeiture, for a
breach of any provision of the reve-
nue. laws, or is interested in any
vessel, or merchandise subject to
seizure, forfeiture, or disability,
may petition the Minister of FL
nance, setting forth the circumstan-
ces of his case, and praying that
the same may be mitigated or re-
naitted, and the said Minister may
mitigate or remit such fine, forfeit
ure or penalty, or remove such dis
ability, or any part thereof, and he
may direct any prosecution for such
fine, penalty or forfeiture, to be dis
continued upon such terms as he
may deem reasonable"
Under this law if there are miti-
eating circumstances, as perhaps
there are in this case, it is in the
power of the Minister of Finance to
grant what relief he may deem
right and just in the matter; this is
left to the discretion of the Minis
ter and not to the Court. The Court
can only administer the law as it
finds it. In the case of "Mary
Belle Roberts," Sd Haw. 500, the
Court quotes the language of Judge
Ware in the "John G. Brooks"
case, 8 Ware 273, where he says:
''To extract this case from the ex-
press language Of the statute, it
must be shown that while the Leg
islature said one thing it meant
another. This may be shown, but
it is incumbent upon him who al
leges an exception to prove it." In
the same case MARY Belle Roberts,
the point was raised, "Can the ship,
which is the property of innocent
third parties, be forfeited by the
unlawful proceeding Of the mas.
ter2" The Court says, cit would
be sufficient to make answer that
the statute of this Kingdom ex.
presses in language too plain to adj.
NIT of other construction that such
a penalty may be enforced" We
can make the same answer to the
question before us in this case
Immediately the case No. 101 was
found on the bark "Kitty" it be
came liable to forfeiture together
with the merchandise named in the
same invoice, and that liability t.
forfeiture cannot be removed by
any prior or subsequent act, eithej
Of the claimant or the customs. IL
the case Of Cleghorn VS.. Samshoo
7 Haw. 1890, the Court says
eve all think that the goods hav
ing become liable TO forfeiture i'm
mediately upon the offense, i. e.
the delivery of the manifest by tn
Master to the Collector General
being committed, no action by an,
officer of the Government coul,
purge such forfeiture"
, We are therefore of opinion tha
| the decision appealed from shout