The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-01-19
OPINION OF TIE COURT BY JUDD, CT

| OPINION OF TIE COURT By JUDD, CT
The defendant was convicted al
the lsst term Of the Circuit Court
Second Circuit of the offense of dis
iiIling spirituous liquor without Il
license. He excerpts to the YER
dict conTicting him on the ground
that 1t was contrary to law and
evidence. The facts in brief ara
that quantity of recently distill
ed spirits with some fermented
rice aud s~boxn, which was appsr-
emily the distilling apparatus or a
part Of it. were found by Police
officers in defendants house and on
his premises, in Paia, District OF
MsksBso. Maui. There were in the
house. at the time OF the visit of the
officers. defendants wife and another
Japanese who was visitor Defend
ant was not at home, but was
arrested st another place in the dis
tri,t shortly after the discovery OF
the artieles above mentioned
The evidence OF the ownership OF
the house was sn admission by de
PENDANT 10 that effect, who also said
thst he did lot make the liquor, but
thst his wife made it
i statute passed in 1884 Chapter
So Of the laws of ths, yesrl sdded to
Section of the Act Of 1882 ''regu
listing the ssle of spirituous liquors"
S clause IS follows: The possession
OF such distilled liquor shall be
g-ir,1 fdtis evidence of the dIstills-
rion thereof, and it shall be incumb-
ent on the party or parties having
possession thereof. TO prove their IN
roeence of distilling the same" This
follows q clause prescribing the
punishment for distilliug spirituous
LIQUORS on these islands, except under
license to owners OF sugar mills
authorized by az Act of 18th July,
1874 On the 18th Jan 1893, an Act
was approved To license the distil-
ling Of spirituous liquors" Section
S OF this Act prescribes the punish
nent for unlicensed distilling OF
spiritu0us liquors. which varies from
the punishment authorized by the
Act Of 1854. This Act Chapter los
OF the laws Of 1928 specifically re-
peals zn Act Of 1884 authorizing the
establishment OF distillsry II Homo
lulu. and also the Act Of 1874 author
ling licenses to distill liquor to
owners Of sugar mills, and also re-
pesIs al laws and parts Of laws in
consistent with the Act itself Does
II repeal. also, the clause Of the Act
Of 1854 making the possession OF
liquor distilled in this country pri1lG
flc5S evidence Of having distilled the
same:
Thst 1t does repeal the punishment
for Illicit distillstion Of spirits enact
ed By the Act Of 1854 Is clear, for it
Is Legislation upon exactly the same
subject and prescribes a different
penalty t0r the otferse-
The clause making the possession
of such distilled liquor PriHsd t'lti<
evidence Of guilt establishes . priR-
ciple Of law II regard to the burden
Of proot IN such cases. Ii may be
called g rule Of evidence. 1t Is not
inconsistent with the later Act pre-
scribing 3 different penalty Ii
stands By itself. and IS il Is Lot speci-
fcaIly repealed and Is not incOusist-
ent with tie Act Of January Ii, 1893,
II stands g law for the guidance Of
Courts and Juries in "a Irisl Of such
cases
Itszz for the jury 10 say whether
the liq1or b=ing found On defend
ants premises and thus II his c0n-
sructiTs possession, he had rebutted
the presumption made b. the Law
that h had distilled II, by his stste-
ueut 70 the eEcers that his wife
made IT, The jury found that be
had lot, ard Ne cannot say that they
were wrong II disbeiieTing him CT
that II lsE i had that effect
Exceptions oTsZruled-
Attorney General W. o. Smith t0E
pzossc1ti0n; ". c. Aehi for defend
snt