The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-06-08


Evidence that liquor produced
okoIehao was distilled from a
the jury finding such liquor to be
spituous
liquor by defendant held
sufficient the verdict
OPINION OF THE COURT BY WHITING, J.
The defendant was convicted of the ofense of dsling
sprtuous liquor without license in violation of Section of
Chapter 1O8 Session Laws of 1892, Act to license the dis
tng of sprtuous liquors The defendant duly excepted to
the verdict contrary and the evidence and also
moved for trial the grounds which motion was
overud and duly excepted to- and defendant by his bill OF
exceptions brings them o this
Chap. 1OS of the Session Laws of 1892 provides for the
licensing of the daon of spirituous liquors and in Sec
it provided person shall dist spruous liquors
without license according to law, shall be punished &c
The rests upon two points:
Whether there sufficient evidence prove that the
liquor okOehaO produced in the splrltuous liquor
Whether there evidence sufficient connect the de
PENDANT with the unexplained possession of the
The evidence clearly shows that the liquor seized okoe
hao and is distilled in these islands from the ii root The
process of obtaining this liquor from the root fully
described and proved The evidence also
showed that this distilled liquor "okolehao strong in
toxicatng liquor However, the word ptuOus not used
by the witnesses in describing this 'okolehao'
claimed that the jury cannot udicay know
that okolehao ptuou liquor and that evidence showing
that such liquor intoxicating does to be spr
ituous.
is a distinction between Intoxicating and Esprit
uous' liquor.
The Intoxicating includes larger class of than
prous They bear the relation each other of and
species; spruous liquors Intoxicating but all ntox
not spiruous.
Commonwealth HeyTick, 6 Cush 468.
Commonwealth a.. Pope, - Cush. 272
Commonwealth a.. LirdmOre Gray 90
parIance, sprituous liquor distilled liquor;
and such believe is its meaning in the statute Fermented
liquor, though Intoxicating, is not spirtuous
Commonwealth a. GREY, Gray 5O2.
These decided upon any statutory definition of
such liquors.
Further the liquor produced before the jury for
In Commonwealth a. Peckham 2 Gray 514 the held
allegation Indictment of unlawful sale of
oxicang liquor supported by proof of sale of GIN without
proof that gin Intoxicating Metca j. says: Jurors
be presumed to be ignorant of what everybody else
And they allowed upon matters within their
general knowledge without testimony these matters
everybody who what gin is knows only that
liquor but also that it is Intoxicating And it might
well have been objected that jury that gin
liquor evidence that solid substance
that they could find that it Intoxicating without tes
mony show it be No juror be supposed to be
ignorant know what gin is Proof therefore, that the
defendant sold proof that he sold Intoxicating liquor If
what he sold Intoxicating liquor it not GIN.
Surely the may be said of okolehao in these islands,
well known pruous liquor of great strength and inox
eating If the liquor in the demijohn distilled and
not Intoxicating it not OkOlehao.
From the evidence given, the could well find that this
liquor spirituOus liquor.
The defense before the jury that the defendant did
have this liquor in his possession under his control and did
disti it.
The evidence shows that a trunk shipped port in
Molokai board the MokoT by the defendant,
HonouIu by the purser
placed with other freight hold of the
on the arrival at Honolulu it was landed and shortly afterwards
seized from the possession of Apana the defendant
whom it had been and whose marked the
demijohn okolehao;
delivery by freight, and
Honolulu in the ordinary of reightng and delivery
Apana, Is also shown by the evidence of the witnesses.
Apana who received the trunk containing the okoehao
testie that, short prior thereto, he asked defendant in
he, the defendant okoehao let him have
for use Dav that he. Apana went to the
steamer expecting it to arrive
Aka sailor the MokolH testified that, the landing
place. Peleknu in Moloka the defendant, Nkon brought
the trunk to passed hands of Aka as
freight, and that it put board the Aka also
testified that defendant Akoni told witness deny
edge of the trunk freight.
other testimony corroborang that of Aka
AkOni carving the trunk the boat handing
also evidence tending show that the
bound bv rope and and delivered Honolulu in