The Hawaiian gazette., 1904-12-23
AVA WAS
A PRESENT
Chinese Tried to Evade
Law But Was
Caught.
(From Thursdays Advertiser)

When you buy dimes worth of ap-
pies be careful not to accept as a pres
ent from the storekeeper a piece of
ava root to boot. Judge Whitney of
the Police Court takes the view that
by so doing the man who gave you
the articles in exchange for the dime
Is liable to arrest and you may have to
be witness. Judge Whitney says that
throwing in a piece of ava root with
every ten cent purchase of apples or
vegetables is not like giving away a
doll for every fifty cent purchase of
drugs, candies or dry goods.
This important question was decided
Monday afternoon in the Police Court
wherein Chinese stallkeeper at the
City Market was found guilty of selling
ava root. This of itself may not be of
so great public interest except that the
minimum penalty which the law i'm
poses is a fifty dollar fine.
Ava root is a unique product of the
soil. 1t has the peculiar quality that
one need but chew it to become intoxi-
Gated. The jag that results from ava
chewing has a sort of deadening effect
upon the chewer and inclines to give
him an alcoholic solar plexus which
lays him out for an indefinite period.
Therefore ava root, although it does
not have to go through a process of dis
| filling to extract the Intoxicating in
gradients, is classed as an intoxicant,
and the law therefore places the ban
upon 1t.
According to the story brought out by
the witnesses for the prosecution a ma
| tive went to the stallkeeper and ask
| ed for ava, giving him ten cents in
payment. The ava root was wrapped
up in a piece of paper, but at the same
time the willy celestial handed the pur-
chaser three apples. 1t was the apples
which the stallkeeper was selling, the
ava being only present. The pur-
chaser, however, bought ava, and con-
sidered the apples thrown in gratui-
tously.
The defense claimed that the giving
away of piece of ava root was mere
| ly an incentive to purchasers or pros
pective customers of the stallkeeper to
patronize him for his merchandise
which was mostly of vegetables and
fruits. The attorney for the defendant
stated that there was really no sale
| for ava root on account of the law
against it. 1t was rotting in the ground.
The Chinese stallkeeper had hit upon
the plan of bringing quantity of the
roots down from Hawaii every month
obtaining the roots for nothing, the
freight being about thirty-seven cents
a bag.
In the arguments of the attorneys II
was brought out that the giving away
of a piece of ava was like some locaI
foreign stores giving away dolls with
every purchase of half a dollar cash
1t was merely to assist trade.
Then the Judge took a hand in the
proceedings. At first it looked as Il
the defendant was to be let free, anC
then, with a simple twist of phraseolo
gy, the defendants attorney learned
that the Judge considered his ellen
guilty. Judge Whitneys oral decision
is so unique that it is worthy of record
The Judge said in part:
THE testimony in this case for thu
prosecution seems pretty good, but the
court comes to the view that the tes
timony of both sides reaches the same
conclusion. Take the defendants side
The defendant, being a stallkeeper in 6
public market, obtains from a FRIEND
of his certain ava and for that aws
he pays nothing except the freight
which amounts to thirty-seven cents {
bag, which may be considered the pric,
of the ava. With every purchase o
goods in his store he hands out a piec,
of ava, which is to secure purchaser.
at his store.
1T seems to the court an inevitabl,
conclusion that the ava becomes par
= of the consideration of the sale, will
the ten cents that is paid for the ap,
pies, that the purchaser may obtain
more for his money than at some othel
place. The sale of three apples for ter
: cents seems immaterfal to the court, a!
the defendant is willing to take a les.
profit on each sale thereof than othe
stallkeepers-
THE court therefore holds that tn,
: ava was sold to the complaining wit
ness and that the defendant is there
fore guilty. In this case the court Il
aware that the defendant has been act
ing under the advice of able counsel
but the counsel in this matter is mis-
taken. 1t is the same case as that o
n restaurant which has no license t,
: sell liquor, but which supplies liquo
with the meal without any extr;
. charge"
Attorney Ashford at this momen
[ awoke from deep sleep and asked i
he might butt in" He received a
affirmative reply and suggested jocose
>. ly that the court had better lock u
defendants attorney, Judge Stanley, a
the defendant was not in court. TIL
court imposed fine of $780,