The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-02-21
COURT CHRONICLE.
Verdict of Ejectment-opium Prison
ers Discharged.

In the case of Talula L. Haysel-
den vs.. Wahineaea, ejectment, a
mixed. jury at 1:15 p. m. to-day re-
turned verdict for the defendant,
three dissenting. Plaintiff bought
land on Queen street sold under fore
closure of mortgage few years ago.
1t appeared in the trial that por-
ton Of the land was especially re-
served from the mortgage. What is
left is, however, worth more than
the purchase price. Ashford for
plaintiff; Nawahi for defendant
James l. Dowsett VS.. Maukeala ct
al, ejectment, was begun trial this
afternoon by mixed jury before
Judge Whiting. G. Brown for plain
tiff; Ashford for defendants.
DECISION ON OPIUM CASES.
Judge Whiting this afternoon fled
decision in the case of The Queen
VS.. All Foo and Ng Chin, opium un-
lawfully in possession. The case
came up on appeal from the District
Court, where motion for discharge
was over-ruled which was based on
the plea that the opium law as
amended in 1890, under which the
defendants were convicted, was re-
pealed by the opium license law
passed the latter part of the session
of 1892.
The decision recites the case in
substance as follows: The Act of
Jan. 10, 1893, provides that it shall be-
come law from and after the date of
its approval in so far as it provides
for the Importation and bonding of
opium, but for the purposes of the
issue of such licenses and the sale
and use of opium Hereunder this
Act shall not take effect until the
LIST day of April, 1893. There are
also provisions for the punishment
of unlawful possession of opium
But the laws under which de-
PENDANTS were convicted are speci-
ally repealed, and there is no saving
clause in the law which excerpts
pending prosecutions of offenses
committed under such repealed
laws.
This opium license law has since
been repealed by Act of the Provi-
sional Government. This Act pro-
vides for the punishment of offenses
of unlawful possession of opium,
and also specially provides that
nothing in this Act shall be con-
strued to affect any prosecutions
pending at the date of the approval
of this Act"
81 am of opinion" says the Court,
chat this saving clause can only APP
ply to such prosecutions pending as
could be prosecuted under the opium
act of the Legislature of 1892. If
the defendants cannot be held and
prosecuted under the act of 1892
this last act, No. 16 of the Pro-
visional Governments Councils, can
not revive the prosecution and the
saving clause cannot affect the de-
PENDANTS"
There is some doubt under Sec.
40 of the Act of 1892, but Sec. 3e
specially repeating the law under
which defendants were convicted is
clear and definite and leaves nc
doubt. The Court is of opinion
that it cannot be construed into a
saving clause.
"Ihe liberty of the person under
the law is sacred until restrained by
legal processes, and all laws for such
restraint should be clear and definite
as to their meaning and intent
The Court cites authority to show
that no prosecution or conviction
under repealed law can BIZ sus
tanned. The motion of defendants
is sustained and the defendant.
may be discharged. Attorney Gen
eral Smith for the prosecution
Hartwell and Peterson for the de
PENDANTS.
This decision will release mum.
Der of persons in custody for opium
in possession,