The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-11-11

Submission under the upon agreed statement of
facts, follows:
The firm of E. Hofschlaeger & Company received ship
of California wine February r 1896 per bark g.
Wilder, and entered the the Cutomhoue in Honolulu
The number of gallons received 1885, of the value of
$14235. The firm of Loveoy q Company received in like
shipment of California February It'll 1896 per
bark Planter and entered the the Customhouse of
Honolulu The number of gallons of the latter shipment
303, of the value of $116.22.'
The regular upon paid by the
According usual CUSTOM the authorities of the Custom
house. for the purpose of facilitating traffic. allowed the packages
to be delivered the defendants without making
official test of the alcoholic strength of the Wines which if
brought the of the consgnees exceeding the lawful
strength would have left them free to abandon the merchandise
place them bonded warehouse the purpose of
reshpment This of testing and notification befoe with
awa has been after this controversy has aren
the merchandise is delivered only after the is made
1t afterwards ascertaned that the wines delivered
tanned higher of alcohol than allowable under
the law Chapter 25 of the Session Laws of 1892 R 49, which
provides that wines containing alcoholic strength over 90
and) below thirty per should pay duty per
gallon and those containing strength
should duty of fifteen per gallon
The wines in question exceeded in alcoholic strength twenty
from eight per 1t appears
that these vines which made and fortified for the Spanish
American market the Hawaiian Islands by mistake
of the congnors and it claimed that the defendants
tended attempted by their respective perperae any
fraud or deceit by ndervauation otherwise
When the fact of these wines containing the alcoholic strength
exceeding Wenone cent asertaned the defendants
requested be allowed the wines question
possession of the Cusomhose authorities, be subjected
such disposition which might be permitted under the law This
request refused by the Collector who insists that the duty of
dollars per gallon should be paid The
of the does exceed the invoice adding the duties
paid them.
The claimed by the Collector the shipment of E.
Hoschaeger g. Company is the sum of $50 in addition to the
fifteen paid that claimed the shipment of Lovejoy
Company IS the sum of $500 additionally.
The fact of the of the alcoholic strength of
eight per does enhance the value of the the local
market and be sold higher price than the Cali
fOna wines below the strength of wentyone per cent?
The defendants make the following points:
L. hat upon being informed of the fact that the wine
2 the defendants requested leave send back the
Customs stores await opportunity rep to California
which denied Collector General who insisted that de
PENDANTS keep the wine and pay the duty of 50 gallon
The Collector General held that the wine could be repped
and the drawback allowed because the had remained
in the Customs required by Section 563 of the Civil
Code"
Section of the Civil provides that all Customs duties
shall be paid cash. with provision however reason
able credit be allowed exceeding 80 days. upon good
and sufficient bond being given the Collector General
The duties paid the rate of fifteen per gallon
and the removed defendants premises, leaving
sample at the Cusomhouse testing The Importation entry
and withdrawal from the CusOmhouse thus complete
Sec 563, Civil Code (mended Laws of 1860, Comp Laws
160) provides that A goods, and merchandise of
every kind and description Whatsoever imported into this King
dom Repubc shall upon expectation be entitled adrawback
equal all duties payable upon such goods; provided that
goods liquors shall be entitled to drawback unless the
exported in the original packages, and shall have been
stored and remained in the public under the charge of
the Collector of Customs
Under this section the defendants could not the wine,
reshp it California and the drawback 1t mis-
fortune to the defendants, but they without remedy
Defendants claim that mutual mistake their part
and that of the Collector General and that the Coectoenea
waived the provisions of the statute.
But Sec 80, Civil Code, provides that Dues goods