The Maui news. [volume] (Wailuku, Maui, H.I.) 1900-current, 1922-07-07
Two Important
Rulings Made On
Prohibition Law
Prosecution Gets Its Evidence
In But Magistrate VIII Re-
consider Motion to Strike if
Violence of Entry is Shown

ecution this morning when Magistrate /
Mossman in the Wailuku District /
Court made two important rulings on .
the prohibition law in the case % the /
Territory VS. 7. Nakagawa, one of the
Waikapu raid cases and the one OF .
which is based the damage suit
against Crabbe, Enos, CoelhO and /
Clark.
The court ruled that where Il per
son permits a prohibition officer who
detects by smell or otherwise what he
believes to be forbidden liquor and
the owner of the premises permits
the officer to enter and investigate ana
such officer finds a quantity of prohi- |.
bited liquor, there has been no viola |
tion of the constitutional rights OF
the owner of the premises.
Whether or not the contents of a
bottle introduced as evidence is fit
for beverage purposes at the time of
the trial is immaterial provided it has
been shown the liquid was fit for bev-
erage purposes at the time of its seiz-
ure.
Motion is Denied
The court overruled the motion to
strike the evidence offered in the bot
tie presented and by the testimony OF
the raiding officers subject, however,
to the right of the defense 70 show
that there had been violation Of his
constitutional rights in the entrance
upon his premises, the search ana the
seizure. Magistrate Mossman said
there was evidence given by the OIL
GERS that the defendant permitted
them to enter his premises, invited
them in they had said, and showed
them the kitchen. There was the
evidence of Coelho that he sampled
the stuff at the time of it's seizure,
that it was rice beer, that rice beer
was fit for beverage purposes. If it
be shown that there was a violent en-
try of the premises the rulings will be
reconsidered
Trial of the Nakagawa case was
resumed this morning and OHlcer
Coelho called to the stand. Over the
objection of the defense he testlhed
that he knew what rice beer is, had
drank it on different occasions for sew
eral years past and knew it to be tit
for beverage purposes and that the
stuff seized was rice beer.
Witness Balks
ATTORNEY Murphy on cross eXamina-
ton called for a cork screw and ask
ed witness if he would sample the
stuff offered as evidence. Coelho re-
fused. Then followed an alteration
between counsel as to whether the
condition of the contents of the bottle
offered as evidence now was import
ant. The defense held it must be
shown that the evidence offered was
fit for beverage purposes and the
prosecution that the court might take
cognizance of common knowledge OF
natural laws and that it is a well
known fact that rice beer is unfit for
beverage purposes after II days un-
less a preservative has been used.
The defense held that the prosecution
must show by expert testimony that
such chemical changes occur.
Following the ruling the prosecution
rested and Attorney Murphy called
his client to the stand. The witness
spoke no English and it was found
there was no interpreter present and
the court took a recess until the SER
vices of a satisfactory Interpreter IS
secured.
The defense is expected to seek to
disproye the evidence of the officers
that they were invited to enter ana
inspect the premises.
To recess was continued until TWO
sIt this afternoon.
s&s.of the Waikapu raid cases, that
l.. .--- T. Nakagawa, occupied atten'
So. the Wailuku magistrates court
IL. LAY morning and afternoon and
IL esumed at $3.50 this morning
iii, ey Murphy for the defense
the prosecution at every point
Ill. ontention being first that the eVl
!s was inadmissable since it Is
lin, I'd to have been seized without
iii. ocess of law and second that II
iii. been established that the stuff
I'LL I'D is the same that was seized
iii .ihas not been proved that it was
I'LL lie for beverage purposes" ever
iii i'd contain alcohol in excess OF
iii, lount permitted by law in bev
llIs /
Liquid Evidence
the opening of the case there
va -rought into court a gallon glass
JtII ner nearly full of a whitish vel
n jquid. On the Offering of thu
iii. and contents as evidence anC
III, libit for the prosecution the fire
iii! started. Attorney Murphy con
III. ! it was taken from his clients
without the preliminary of
snt. He argued at length on hi
1 and for the prosecution Count,
ley Bevins Deputy Frank CroC
iii I'D United States Attorney Hube
heard Magistrate Mossman fin
srmitted the exhibit to be mark
HI, crying ruling on the motion t.
IIII until it be established whe
r not the evidence was secure
q ~. warrant of the law.
! raiding officers were the prose
s witness and Attorney Murph
St.' nted an affidavit which allege
arranted entrance upon his cl