Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1908-10-19
'; !: !: Pr mo Beer &C.: :: !:

person taken into custody if such person is minor by
his parents parent guardians if such or his repre-
scnativc shall fail to select physician within ten days after
the Boards selection such right shall be lost, and the Board
shall select two physicians If the two physicians after the
completion of such examination shall that such person
suffering with cprosy, ca6abe of spreading that dis
case such person shall be released from custody and furnished
by the Board with transportation home but if the two phys
clans that such person suffering with leprosy and capa
bic of spreading that disease, such person shall remain in the
custody of the Board and be confined in such place there
for provided by law In of disagreement between the two
physicians whether such person suffering with
lcposy and capable of spreading that disease they SHALL with
little delay possible select third licensed PHYSICIAN
and the three yscan shall proceed to make second cxam
nation On the completion of such second examination, tine
decision of two of the three physicians that such person is
is not suffering with leprosy and capable of spreading that
disease shall determine whether such person shall be released
confined in the manner horenbefore provided"
The evidence shows that the petitioner being suspected of
having eprosy, notified by DIR. Goodhuc Hawaii to
report at the Kaih receiving station for examination. She
to Honolulu with other lepcr suspects and met by
of the board of health who took her the receiving sta
ton Here accordance with the act quoted she notified
to select physician examine her and selected Dr. D. Atc
crcy, who, with DR. Mcdonald, nominated by the board of
health, made examination DIR. Mcdonald signed ccrtif
that the patient suffering WITH cprosy and capable of
spreading that disease Upon this certificate being presented
to Dr. Achcrey he refused to sign it stating orally that the
patient had leproy but that he would certify that she
capable of spreading the disease There evidence of any
further action being requested of Dr. AcCrcy Three months
afterwards the petitioner asked select another DOCTOR
being told by the keeper Of the receiving station that Dr. Atc
allowed there. lhcrcnpon
demur she selected Dr. Mclcnnan Dr. Mcennan certified
that he unable whether not the patient had
afflicted with crosy and he and Dr. Mcdonald selected Dr.
Sinclair the third physician who certified that the patient
suffering with cproy and capable of spreading that dis
The return of the president of the board of health up
this certificate of two doctors justification for holding the
petitioner in custody.
We sustain the respondents contention that the fact
of the existence noncXstcncc of cprosy is he determined
hacs corpus proceedings This would enable per-
regularly pronounced eper to have the decision of the
board of examining physicians reviewed by the which
not the tribunal designated by the Legislature for that purpose
In these proceedings the legality of the detention depends upon
the regularity of the proceedings by virtue of which the petit
oner held in custody Under the amended statute epcr
suspect be held custody only long enough make the
prescribed examination with the least possible delay and there
after only upon decision, rendered in accordance with the
ute that he is suffering with prosy and capable of spreading
that disease.
the requiring penal followed by
under conditions precedent in all
the examination prescribed by See 1l22A The reference in
the opening of the paragraph persons taken into
custody provided in See. 1922 does expressly by
cssay implication exclude from the benefits that section per-
who have voluntarily surrendered themselves into custody
for the purpose of examination those who have appeared
response TO penal summons The intent of the legislature
would have be clearly expressed before could find
that intended give the safeguards of Sec 1122A the
rccacitant and cy them those appearing voluntarily
upon simple notification.
The first physician selected by the petitioner in accordance
with her rights nder the Dr. Acherey and in the
orderly OF procedure the final determination in of
disagreement would have been made by board, the third mem
Der of which selected by linn and Dr. Mcdonald We
required say what the procedure would be in either
physician unreaonaby refused proceed in accordance with
the statute there is evidence of such REFUSAL this
The question here the regularity of the selection of
Dr. Mccnnan with the selection of Dr. Atclerlcy still
standing Undoubtedly there circumstances under which
the patient could waive her rights and nominate another phy
Such waiver however,. would have to be made with
full knowledge of the facts In the at bar the evidence
warrants the conclusion that the patient required by the
board of health to select another physician without legal
therefor Whether she inmaed ,by threat to
send her Mooka claimed in her testimony mmaeral
the conclusion be based wholly upon the testimony of the
keeper of the receiving station called for the respondent III
rebual who testified that he had told her that she had to
choose another doctor because Dr. Achcrev allowed to
there again. The nomination of second doctor under
these circumstances he held to be waiver of her rights.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
T., ". ashford for petitioner.
W. h. whitney, Deputy Attorney General and g, Il. Hemcn-
,cay, Attorney General for respondent,