The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-12-31
Decision Rendered by Judge
Perry Monday Morning.
DEFENDANTS NOTE AN APPEAL.
Captain Anderson and Passenger Gale
sentenced to Eighteen Months I'M
prisonment at Hard Labor and $500
Fine-Irew Get Three and Fines.

The announcement that Judge
Perry would 1erder a decision in
the schoon,r Henrietta smuggling
case Monday morning drew a crowd
to the District court room. The
prisoners wer arraigned, and the
following decision given in the case
of Republic of Hawaii vs.W. B. An
derson Ell al. Importing opium:
The questions presented for decision
in this case are: tIrst-has an lmpor-
tation into the Hawaiian Islands been
shown. Second-if such importation
into port rot of entry is all that is
shown, does that constitute viola
ton of Section l, Act u, of the Pro-
visional Government laws?
| Third-Does the evidence attach
guilty know ledge TO the defendants or
any of them? Fourth-If it does up
on the memtar of the crew, are they
criminally !iable?
The evidence shows that the vessel
and her cargo of opium was found
| and seized by Custom House officers
and police while lying at anchor in
the port of Keau, near Waianae, Oahu,
at a distance of about quarter of a
mile from shore; that she was there
with the intent to unload the opium
at that port; that her arrival in the
port was voluntary and not in conse-
! Quence of distress nor to avoid the
perils of the sea and that keau Is not
| u port OF entry
The autho les hold that under
these circumstances the importation
Is complete, adding, however, that for
|
port of entry.
In Gall. 365, the court says By
! the arrival of the vessel at the port of
Bristol on the 30th of Juue, with an
| intent there 10 unload her cargo, the
importation was complete. The duties
accrue on the importation, and not on
the entry a ne custom house"
81 ana We . satisfied that an impor
tation within the meaning of the
statute rnust be an importation into
some pert or district OF the United
States with intent there TO discharge
Or lar q the cargo. ifthere
be voluntary entry into the port,
With an intent to land the goods, ii
has been held that the importation
was com pIete, although within forty
eight hours a new destination was
given to the property" Gall. 35S;.
"The duties did not accrue, in the
fiscal sense of the term. until the
vessel arrived at that port of entry.
5 Cranch. 372 q Z. s., 39S). That
means, if anything, that they do ac-
crue upon such arrival.
1.-The importation Is complete as
soon as the goods are brought within
any port with the intention of being
unladen or sold there" l Mason, 499
"The question has also been asked
at what time the right to the Govern
ment to the duties accrue in the fisca
sense of the term The answer is, a
the time when the goods have arrived
at the proper port of entry" 13 Peters
494
81 take it to be we'll settled rule
that the mere coming into port
though without breaking bulk, il
prima facie evidence of an impOrta
tion. But the presumption may b'
rebutted by showing that it was Occa
stoned by unavoidable accident Ol
overruling necessity. L can
not find any case in which it has beer
held that the coming voluntarily into
IA port, with an intent to make that
port of discharge, unless future con
tingeut destination shall, after arrival
be given to the property, has beer
held not to be an importation. Muct
less can it be admitted that Vesse
can have a right TO come into pOr
with goods on board which are absO-
lutcly prohibited from importation
merely to consult on an ulterlor dis
position of the goods.
such pretences We're allowed, 1t WOult
be difficult to reach single case o
frauGuient Importation, until the pro
perty had been removed beyond the
grasp of forfeiture. l Gall, IA g.
Keau not being a port of entry
does this importation come within
the meaning of Section /, Act II ? Or
does that act refer to and include only
such impOrtatiOns as take place int