The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-05-04
OPINION OF THE COURT BY B1cKERToN,

OPINION OF THE COURT BY BICKERToN,
This matter comes here on an
agreed statement of facts. The sub
mission is as follows:
"That on the complaint of the
said Ell. P. Faye & Go. the said
Takeshita Matsuji was brought be
fore J. K. Kapuniai, Esq, District
Magistrate of Waimea, Kauai, on
the charge OF refusing for second
time to perform labor under writ
ten contract between him and the
said complainants, and was found
&guilty of said refusal, and sentenced
to pay fine of SO with 81 95 costs,
and a mittimus was issued by said
Magistrate to the Marshal accord
ingly, directing that the said Takes.
hita Matsuji be imprisoned at hard
labor until said fine and costs be
Oath day of February, A. d. 1894.
eThat the said Takeshita Matsuii
had been once arrested for similar
refusal to serve, and in obedience to
the order of the magistrate had re-
turned to service of his said employ
ers, and had again, but only once,
thereafter wilfully absented himself
from such service, so that by law he
could for such first offence have been
fined not exceeding five dollars, and
that the charge SO made SIS aforesaid
did not specify or state, nor did the
evidence show, that he had commit
ted second offence of again will
fully absenting himself from such
service.
Wherefore the plaintiff claims that
his said sentence was illegal and
ought to be so declared, and the said
III. p. Faye & Co., so admit and
agree, and have requested the said
Marshal TO discharge him from GUS
tody under said mittimus, and the
said Marshal is ready and DESTROYS
to do so, upon obtaining from the
Court an adjudication to that effect,
but not otherwise.
"The defendants severally agree
that their Honors the Justices of the
Supreme Court may decide the ques-
ton of the legality of said sentence,
as il the same were brought up by
appeal, bill of exceptions, writ of
error or on ha6eas corpus"
This whole matter is controlled by
the statute which is clear. The case
bears Of no argument; it is clearly an
error or misunderstanding of the law
by the district magistrate. Chapter
LXIII Laws 1892, provides that any
person refusing to serve according to
the terms of his contract, shall be
taken before magistrate and If be
persists In the refusal he shall be
committed to prison at hard labor
until he will consent to serve accord
ing to law. And if he shall return
to service in obedience to the order
of the magistrate and shall again
wiIlfully absent himself from such
service without leave of his master,
the magistrate ''may fine such
offender for the first offence not ex-
ceeding five dollars and for the Sec
ond offence, not exceeding ten
dollars" Where an offender is
brought before the magistrate Sec
Ond time, the statute makes it the
first offence, and the third time the
second offence; so it is clear that this
defendant should have been fined
rot to exceed five dollars. The mag
istrate in fining him ten dollars I'M
posed an illegal sentence, and the
defendant should be discharged.
A. S. Hartwell for defendant, A
n. Brown for the Marshal; q. K.
Wilder for Faye & Co.
Honolulu, April 80, 1894.