The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-01-19
OPINION OF THE CoU

OPINION OF THE COURT By JUDD, CD.
The defendant was convicted at
the last term of the Circuit Court
Second Circuit of the offense of dis
tiIling spirituous liquor without a
license. He excerpts to the YER
dict con7icting him on the, ground
that 1t was contrary to law and
evidence. The facts In brief are
that a quantity OF recently dlstlil.
ed spirits with some fermented
rice and a"box", which was appar-
emily the distilling apparatus or a
part of it, were fonnd by Police
officers in defendants house and on
his premises, in Paia, District OF
Makawao. 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 at another place In the dis
trict shortly after the discovery OF
the articles above mentioned.
The evidence of the ownership OF
the house was an admission by de-
PENDANT to that effect, who also said
that he did not make the liquor, but
that his wife made it.
A statute passed In 1884 (Chapter
SO of the laws of that year, added to
Section ) OF the Act of 1882 "regu-
lating the sale of spirituous liquors"
a clause as follows: The possession
of such distilled liquor shall be
prima .facie evidence OF the dlstilla-
ton thereof, and it shall be incumb-
ent on the party or parties having
possession thereof, to prove their IN
nocence Of distilling the same" This
follows a clause prescribing the
punishment for distilling spirituous
liquors on these islands, except under
license to owners OF sugar mills
authorized by an Act OF 18th july,
1874. On the 18th Jan. 1893, an Act
was approved ITO license the distll-
ling Of spirituous liquors" Section
S of this Act prescribes the PUNISH.
ment for unlicensed dlstlll1ng or
spirituous liquors, which varies from
the punishment authorized by the
Act of 1884. This Act Chapter los
of the laws of 1929 specifically re-
peals an Act of 1884 authorizing the
establishment of distillery In Homo
lulu. and also the Act of 1874 author
ling licenses to distill liquor to
owners of sugar mills, and also re-
peaIs all laws and parts of laws in
consistent with the Act itself. Does
II repeal. also, the clause of the Act
OF 1884 making the possession OF
liouor distilled in this country prtn1d
face evidence of having distilled the
same?
That it does repeal the punishment
for illicit distillation of spirits enact
ed bv the Act of 1884 is clear, for 1T
is legislation upon exactly the same
subject and prescribes dlnerent
penalty for the offense-
The clause making the possession
of such distilled liquor prtn'G Jdc'e
evidence of guilt establishes prln-
ciple of law in regard to the burden
of proof in such cases. 1t may be
called a rule of evidence. 1t is not
inconsistent with the later Act pre-
scribing a different penalty LII
stands by itself, and, as it is not specl-
fically repealed and is not lnconslss-
ent with the Act of January Ii, 1888,
IT stands as law for the guidance OF
Courts and Juries in tn , trial OF such
cases.
Tt was for the jury to say whether
the liquor being found on defend
ants premises and thus In his con,
possession, he had rebutted
the presumption made by the law
that he had distilled it, by his state
ment to the officers "that his Wlfe
made it, The jury found that he
nad not, and we cannot say that they
we're wrong in disbelieying him OF
hat in law it had that effect
Exceptions overruled;o c.,, Cor
Attorney General w: .: Smith Tor
rosecution: w. G. Achi for defend
Honolulu, January 10, 1854.