The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-01-21
CAUSE FOR
COMPLAINT.
The Liquor Dealers
Have Been
Damaged.
TEST OF LAW
WILL BE HEARD
Demurrer in Case of MacfarIane &
Co. vs.. Wright OverruIed
by Estee.

second demurrer to the petition in the
case of Macfarlane & Co, ct al. VS..
W. Fl. Wright, treasurer of the Terri
tory of Hawaii. This is what is known
as the test of the constitutionality Of
the liquor law under which the local
brewery is operated, and which the
dealers here claim to be violation of
the Interstate Commerce Act. Judge
Estee held that there was sufficient
showing of damage by plaintiffs to
warrant trial and the case was set
down for hearing next Friday morn
ing The defendants are required to
file an answer before Thursday.
Mr.. Silliman, in presenting his de-
murrer said that the plaintiffs had no
cause for complaint, and were enjoying
all the privileges they were entitled to,
and had the same right to sell their
malt products as did the Honolulu
Brewery, and in addition sold wine,
champagne and other spirituous
liquors. .'These complainants," said
Mr. Silliman, want to get lead pipe
cinch in the form OF a perpetual mo-
nopoly in the liquor business. They
have no cause for complaint; they are
enjoying to the full limit the laws
regulating this nefarious traffic. and
are enjoying all the benefits. If the
Legislature in it's discretion saw that
it is better to have little places where
only beer and other light liquors can
be sold. that is a proper exercise OF
legislative wisdom; if they wish it sold
in this manner, rather than have the
residence districts overrun with joints
these plaintiffs have no right to COM
plain But if one of these small saloon
keepers wanted other beers to SELL and
was refused or arrested for violation OF
the law, he could raise this point OF
violation of the Interstate Commerce
law"
MIR. Silliman said that the present
bill was no different from the first
one filed, and which had been thrown
out of court by Judge Estee, and ask
ed that the demurrer be sustained in
the present instance, also. III COM
plainants were entitled to any relief,
he contended, it was the striking out
of the word local in the legisla tive
act.
Mr.. Dunno replied that the plaintiffs
were entitled to the protection of the
courts; that they were being discrimi-
mated against by being charged an ans
nual license of four times that paid by
vendors of beer manufactured by the
local brewery. He said that these out
side breweries could not be expected
to compete, when they were required
to pay $1,000 a year, while the Primo
company paid .but $3.50 for the same
privilege He said that these breweries
did not want to sell anything else but
beer, and it did them no good to be
allowed to vend champagne and wine
under the same license, when they had
none to sell. He believed that the out
side breweries We're entitled to the
same rights as the local concern, and
Gax 81 ha al cd n
in the Territory upon the payment of
the $3.50 license Mr.. Robertson follow
ed. also for the plaintiff, and dealt
principally with the alleged violation
of the commerce law, claiming that
this liquor law was an interference
with the commerce between the Ter
ritory and other States.
Mr.. Slliman replied, arguing that the
agents of these breweries were the
men interested. and that they sold
champagne and wine and other liquors
and were enjoying more benefit from
the 81. 900 fee than was allowed for the
$3.50 license, which permits the sale OF
malt liquors only.
Judge Estee Immediately rendered g
decision overriding the demurrer and
setting the case for trial for Friday
morning.
CIRCUIT COURT.
In the Circuit Court yesterday morn
! ing Judge Humphreys heard argumen
| upon demurrer in the case of Henry
Smith vs.. Mary A. S. Rose, involving
the exchange of a piece of land by the
| government for street widening, Ii
which plaintiff claims his rights were
| ignored and he was not allowed to ne
gotiate for the purchase of land abut
ting his property. The demurrer was
overruled, Humphreys remarkfnS tina
when he heard the complaint read h
| was of the opinion that it should bt
thrown out, but upon hearing the de
murrer he changed his mind and al
lowed the petition to stand. Attorne!
Peters appeared for plaintiff, and Mr.
| Kinney for defendant.
Judge Humphreys has overruled thu
demurrer in the case of Mrs. K LaZ
arus VS.. H. A. Juen ct al, and ordered
an injunction issued upon the filing o
a bond for $500 by plaintiff.
A bill of exceptions has been filed il