The Hawaiian gazette., 1902-01-28
SOME FACTS
ABOUT BEER
Secrets of Trade
Are Told in
Court.
(From Saturdays daily.)


Honolulu were barred before Judge Es-
tee yesterday in the trial of the case
of Macfarlane & Co. ct al VS.. w. II.
Wright. Treasurer of the Territory of
Hawaii. According to the testimony
adduced at the trial, the sale of beer
made in the States has fallen off over
so per cent since the Honolulu Brew
cry began business. The use of the
amber liquid in the city has no. de-
creased, however, for the figures given
by Manager Hooking showed a cores
ponding increase in sales of the local
brewery.
Plaintiffs claimed that this was due
not so much TO competition, as to the
issuance of licenses for $3.50 for the
sale of the home brewed beer. where
they were compelled to pay $1,000 FOR
the privilege of selling beer made else
where than in Hawaii. Defendant
claimed that the falling off in the bust
ness of complanants was due to bene-
hcial competition. and the fact that
they sold beer for rs cents a glass,
where defendant was willing to take a
much smaller profit. Judge Estee said
that he could not interfere with any
lawful competition, and would take
cognizance only of the constitutional
question of whether or not the law un-
der which the cheap licenses We're is
sued was in restraint of trade. The
progress of the trial was tediously
slow. and il is doubtful IL the case will
be concluded today. Little testimony
was introduced but what was objected
to. and the examination of the books
which defendant insisted should be putt
in evidence consumed several hours.
w. II. Wright, the defendant in the
suit, was the first witness called by
the plaintiff. He said he had issued
twenty-five beer licenses at the $3.50
rate since July LIST, and admitted also
that a verbal request had been made
upon him by complainants for the
same kind of a license, which he had
refused to give. Defendant objected to
the introduction of the books, and
plaintiff then began to read the names
of each license holder. to show the
location in proximity to the places of
business of compla!nants. The court
interrupted the reading, however, upon
objection that it was not material.
II think it is material" said COM
plainants attorney. Here a man has
business already established, and
you put around it a Gordon Of these
cheap saloons which injure his trade"
The court can't take cognizance of
any act within the discretion of the
Treasurer He is the judge of where
the saloons shall be located, I take it,
replied Judge Estee.
I'VE don't claim he is abusing his
discretion"
1.-THE court can't interfere with com
petition, or say that because of the es-
adjustment of that one saloon. some
man is making greater profit than
some one else"
Mr.. Silliman stated that the location
OF these saloons had nothing to do with
the case.
well. If the damage Is admitted"
said plaintiffs attorney. then there is
no use introducing any evidence-it is
only question of law"
1.-THE court has already held that the
demurrer was not good" replied Judge
Estee, land that the compliments have
shown they were damaged"
Plaintiff contended that ii did make
n material difference where these
twenty-five, saloons We're located, as
showing the effect upon their business.
Judge Estee stated that he could take
cogniZance only of the fact that the
licenses were issued in the Territory Of
Hawaii, and it did not make any diff
ference whether the saloons We're To-
Gated in Honolulu or at Waikiki. The
reading of the licenses was consequent
ly not continued.
The witness further testified that
there were probably twenty-five whole
salers and dealers licenses Issued by
him. including quite a number who
We're not parties to the suit.
LlHHI OEN bIEN Eh1 bOSlNE-SS'
A. A. Hooking, president Of the Ho-
nolulu Brewery, was then called by
plaintiffs, and from the beginning there
was fight on part of defendant to
exclude his testimony as immaterial.
I'm what quantities have you been
brewing beer at your brewery since
You started on this license?" asked Mr..
Robertson on direct examination.
Mr.. Siiliman objected. That's a nice
III 4, I'll f,g 80,
the private business Of a man in a
court of justice. Next thing l suppose
you will be asking how much money
he has been making"
That's just what we intend to do"
retorted Mr.. Dunno. "'These liquor
men don't think it to be very nice
thing to have their business cut down
30 per cent"
Mr.. Hooking was unable to answer
the questions without a reference to his
books, end was excused until after the
noon recess, so that he might produce
his records in court.
w. Q. Peacock. of the firm bearing
his name, was the next witness. He
testified that the company of which
he was the head furnished beer to four
saloons, and that they We're compelled
To pay a $1,000 license for each of them.
"Our business has been materially
injured by the sale of Primo beer"
said the witness. our sales for the
saloons mentioned for the months of
May, June, July and August We're al
most three-fold what they We're for
September, October, November and De-
cember. and this decrease l attribute
almost entirely to the opposition of
these cheap saloons"
The question in that form was ruled
out, though answered later in prac-
'ically the same words. The court
I'M Wit Ia
Judge Estee, land has nothing to dc
with competition: the sole question 1.
the constitutionality of this law. The
beer may have been higher or a dozen
ether things may have affected it."
That's just it," rejoined Silliman;
these gentlemen charge % cents a
glass, and don't want to cut the
price"
AFTERNOON SESSION.