Case: The Minister of the Interior vs. Hackfeld et al.
Abbreviation: Minister of the Interior v. Hackfeld
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1873-07
Docket Number: 
Citation: 3 Haw. 498
Volume: 3
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Parties: The Minister of the Interior vs. Hackfeld et al.
Pages: 498–502

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.
JULY TERM—1873.
Allen, Ch. J., Hartwell and Widemann, J. J..
The Minister of the Interior vs. Hackfeld et al.
Bill of Exceptions,—Action to recover for Storage of Goods in the Government Warehouse.
In a contract giving the free use of a storehouse, but reserving the right to charge storage for merchandise “which shall not be the subject of steamship transportation.” Held that goods which are in fact shipped by sailing vessels, are chargeable. Widemann, J., dissenting.
The defendants placed in evidence a contract between the plaintiff and a foreign steamship company of which they are agents, wherein it is agreed that the Minister of the Interior shall set apart the government storehouse and wharf for the exclusive use of the company; also, that “it is expressly understood that storage may be charged for merchandise which shall not be the subject of steamship transportation, no preference being given to particular shippers.” Jury was waived, and the Court, Widemann, J., found that the defendants had stored 1200 tons of sugar in the house with the intention of forwarding by steamer, but which were.shipped by packets, and gave judgment for the defendants.

OPINION OF TÍIE MAJORITY OF THE COURT BY
HARTWELL, J.
If the contract does not exempt the steamship company from paying storage on goods like these, of course it exempts no one therefrom. The contract gives the company the exclusive use of the wharf and warehouse for steamship purposes, with the sole object therein specified of encouraging steam navigation, and not sailing vessels. It reserves the right to charge storage for merchandise “which shall not be the subject of steamship transportation.” We think it is evident that this right is reserved to the Minister of the Interior, and is not granted to the company, since the expressed object of the contract is to grant privileges for steamship purposes, and there is nothing which leads us to infer that the company was to have free storage of packet goods with the right of charging others therefor.
The only question then is, whether goods sent on packets are exempt from charges by reason of the shipper’s intention to ship by steamer. The words, “merchandise which shall not be the subject of steamship transportation” may mean, goods not susceptible of this mode of conveyance, goods not intended to be so conveyed, and goods not conveyed by steamers. The first construction makes no goods liable and is at once dismissed. The second construction is open to the objections that the shipper’s intention concerning the goods cannot be ascertained until he ships them, and may often be changed. Goods for packet may be stored for months, and finally, shipped by steamer. If such goods were exempt from charges during all of such time, this would open the warehouse free to all who at any time intend to ship by steamer. On the whole, we do not think this construction reasonably can be presumed to have been contemplated by the parties. The construction we place on the contract is, that it gives the company free use of the wharf and storehouse for its steamers and for goods shipped thereon, and that it permits the Minister of the Interior to charge all persons, agents of the company or not, for storage of other goods. We think this view is consistent with the main object expressed in the contract.
The exceptions are sustained and a new trial is ordered.