The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-09-06
OPIUM IN A
NUTSHELL
Question of An Original
Container..
LAW OF SEARCH WARRANTS
Interesting Legal Points EIucidated
by Judge Humphreys in
An Chong Case.


question came up in the Circuit Court |
before Judge Humphreys yesterday |
during the progress of the prosecution
II All ChOng. charged with selling |
opium. IL was a jury trial upon which !
the following jurors sat:
Chas. n. Rose, Eugene Z. Sullivan, L.
s. Cunha, VIM. NJ. Graham, George Z.
Smithies. II. a. Dexter, +. III. Arm
strong, +. w. Makipney, +. Oscar
White. John III. Schnacl-, Jacob Lando.
and Geo. $. Wells. assistant Attorney
General Robbins for prosecution; Rob
ertsOn & Wilder and ]. T. De Bolt for
defendant.
The evidence Of Deputy Sheriff Chill
Iingworth for the prosecution was to
the effect that he had made a raid upon
the house Of An Chong on Liliha street
several months since. but without the
formality of a search warrant He had
brought away from the house several
articles 10 be used as evidence against
the defendant, including the opium
preparation. pipes and other parapher-
MALTA incidental to an opium smokers
outfit.
officer Haurahan who was TO have
been placed on the stand to show that
he had seen the defendant in the house
at the time of the raid. was denied the
privilege. Judge Humphreys in ruling
upon the evidence called attention TO
I United States statutes. 116. page go.
Under the authority cited Judge Hum
/ phreys stated in effect that articles OBJ
tained in a room, such as was intended
] to be produced by the prosecution, were
not admissible as they We're not taken
D
/ search warrant.
I'VE have a law which provides how
| search warrants may be issued to po-
| lice officers said Judge Humphreys,
and they are the last officers or the
/ last persons who should go around
/ breaking into peoples houses without
search warrants. Nobodys rights Of
liberty are safe II that may be done. ="
The authority upon which the Judge
based his ruling is found in the sylla-
bus. as follows:
Search and seizure of a mans private
papers 20 be used in evidence for the
purpose OF convicting him of a crime,
recovering a penalty. or of forfeiting
his property. is totally different from
the search and seizure of stolen goods,
dutiable articles on which the duties
have not been paid. and the like. which
rightfuliy belong TO the custody Of the
law.
The seizure or compulsory production
OF a mans private papers to be used in
evidence against himself is equivalent
10 compelling him to be a witness
against himself. and in the pros
ecution of crime. penalty of for
feiture. is equally within the prohibit
ton of the 5th amendment.
The question Of the right to sell i'm
ported opium If in the original pack
ages was brought out at the close OF
the trial before the arguments were
presented. The opium which caused
the trouble OF All ChOng was a small
quantity which had been placed in thu
empty shell OF lichee nut. Judg'
Humphreys stated that under certain
circumstances the lichee nut might b.
called an original container as he knew
Of instances where opium had bee
brought into Hawaii in shoes, in vege
: tables, In kerosene oil cans. etc. AT
torney General Dole in reply though
. il Uncomfortable that lichee nutshell
was the original container for opium
and II was beyond the bounds OF com
y mon sense that a single lichee nutshe
= was the original container. The sale G
y liquor as the sale OF opium was With
y police power II not contained in tn
y original package. There was the sam
3 right TO prohibit the sale of liquor an
. the sale of opium or anything else {
4 like character which a State woul
4 have unless Congress. which is omnipC
4 tent. forbids it. Judge Humphreys il
\ terrupted by stating that a State car
not prohibit the sale of an article whic
Congress has allowed.
Mr.. Dole continued with the renar
that In certain states the sale of intol
y icating liquors is absolutely prohibi
"a except in the original packages. i
cOnsidered the case one in which Il
burden rested upon the defendant
y prove that the opium involved in Il
present case was contained in the ori
inal package OF Importation.
LILIUOKALANI ANSWERS Will
SON.
Liliuokalani Dominis mas filed
murrer To the bill of injuncti
brought against her by Charles Il. W
son. in which the latter seeks TO pr
vent the plaintiff from ejecting hi
from certain premises on Young a.
PiikOi streets. She sets forth that I
said piatntiu has not In and by
said bill. made or stated such a eau
as does or ought to entitle him to a
. such relief as is thereby sought a.
4 prayed for from or against this defe
e, dant. That neither the commissions
or deed nor the declaration of trust in sd
, bill nor any copy or copies thereof, a
attached 10 or made part Of said b
J. That neither the premises or agre
n ments alleged in said bill. and of viii
"a the plaintiff by said bill seeks TO Ia
:. the benefit. nor any memorandum
On note thereof was ever reduced to wr
I'm ing or signed by defendant or any pr
DR. son authorized thereunto within
IA meaning OF the statute for the prove
- ton Of frauds and perjuries.
10 That said bin is uncertain. inco
&c sistent and unintelligible. in that 1t
e." not made TO appear upon which OF
N. several alleged premises of the defe
dant relies as a ground OF the rel
" prayed.
Der Liliuokaiani asks that the bill again
m. her may be dismissed.
CHAIRMAN FOR ESTATE