The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-12-21
AVA WAS
4 PRESENT
Chinese Tried to Evade
Law But Was
Caught.

| When you buy a dimes worth of APP
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 a 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
doll for every fifty cent purchase of
drugs, candies or dry goods.
This important question was decided
Monday afternoon in the Police Court
wherein a Chinese stallkeeper at the
City Market was found guilty of selling
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. II mas the DStuIldI qualify tIldt
one need but chew it to become intoxi-
Gated. The jag that results from ava
chewing has a sort OF Geadening 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
rot have to go through a process of dis
tilling to extract the intoxicating in
gradients, is classed as an intoxicant
and the law therefore places the ban
upon it.
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 piece of paper but at the same
time the WHY 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-
JouSly.
The defense claimed that the giving
away of piece of ava root was mere
~ an incentive To purchasers OF pros
pective customers of the stalIkeeper 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 a 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 it
was brought out that the giving away
of a piece of ava was like some local
foreign stores giving away dolls with
every purchase of a half dollar cash |
1t was merely to assist trade.
Then the Judge took a hand in the |
proceedings. At first it looked as if |
the defendant was to be let free, and |
then, with a simple twist of phraseolo- |
gy, the defendants attorney learned |
that the Judge considered his client |
guilty. Judge Whitney's oral decision |
is so unique that it is worthy of record. |
The JuGen said in part: |
The testimony in this case for the
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 staIIkeeper in a |
public market, obtains from a friend |
of his certain ava and for that ava |
he pays nothing except the freight |
which amounts to thirty-seven cents a |
bag. which may be considered the price |
OF the ava. With every purchase of |
of ava, which is to secure purchasers |
at his store.
Tt seems to the court an inevitable !
conclusion that the ava becomes a part !
of the consideration of the sale, with
the ten cents that is paid FOR the APP |
pies, that the purchaser may obtain |
more for his money than at some other
place. The sale of three apples for ten !
cents seems immaterial to the court, as
the defendant is willing to take a less
profit on each sale thereof than other
stallkeepers.
The court therefore holds that the
ava was sold to the complaining wit
ness and that the defendant is there
fore guilty. In this case the court is
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 of
p restaurant which has no license to
sell liquor, but which supplies liquor
with the meal without any extra
charge"
Attorney Ashford at this moment
awoke from a deep sleep and asked if
be might butt in He received an
affirmative reply and suggested jocose-
y that the court had better lock up
defendants attorney, Judge Stanley. as
he defendant was not in court The
.ourt imposed a fine of $50 +