Year: 1860

agents at the island in supplying the to the labor
ers The law, the Court have declared it, makes the
rule stringent the labOring that he shall
his entire term as per contract forfeit the wages for
the labor he has performed, besides ineurrng the a-
bity for damages if any harm arises beyond the value
OF his services and the Court will hold the rule equally
stringent on the employers that they shall fulfil their
part OF the contract, material part Of which is to fur
nish sufficient, good and wholesome food and water and
the question Is was the plaintiff supplied he should
have been 1t will be borne in mind that he was en-
pOyed on island about three degrees north Of the
equator in shoveng guanO into bags in transporting
them to the sea and in boating them the vessel The
weather is hot and exhausting and the labor is hard
under the most favorable circumstances Ii is in evil
dence that the work commenced half past Eve in the
morning and continued until p. NJ, and some tes-
tilted till sundown. Now, what does q require to
sustain his health and strength, in labor Of this charse
ter, IN such locality He should be treated to
quantity and quality Of food and the same rs if
be was on this island, unless prevented by accident
against which reasonable foresight could guard it
became necessary to deal out at restrictive allowance
But under no other circumstances q restrictive al
loWance be justified Labor in dust and dirt and under


hot sun Is very exhaustng, and the system must be
supplied with food and water nature demands There
can be other rule for laborng In this case il
is very clear that there especially in the article Of
water, restrictive allowance They should have had
all that necessary for the preparation of their food
which to the Hawaiian is specially important, well
for drink


1t is claimed further by the plaintiff that he should
have damages for his suerngs account Of the nom
ul6ment of the contract in this particular. The evil
dence does not sustain the allegation of that degree of
hardship and privatiOn which has inurOusly affected
his health if it so, the Court would certainly
award damages But, in this case, the defendants had
done their duty in furnishing ample supplies and their
agents at the island have not eyneed peryerse dpo-
sitOn


The Court regard it error in Judgment rather
than in purpose TO stint the in his food and wa
ter, either to the supplies in derogaton Of the right
of the plaintiff for the beneft of the defendants
They may have been misead by their experience and
practice shipbOard but the rules at not fully
applicable to labor the land We therefore do not
regard the which is entitled to damages al
Though of sufficient merit to terminate the contract and
TO enttle the plaintiff the value of his labor actually
rendered to the defendants The law can make no dis
elimination in the treatment of labOrng men on the
Phoenix Island this island, so far as concerns the
supply of wholesome food and water except in case of
loss of supplies by other casualty II there
fore the decision of the Court that the plaintiff recover
for six months wages at $40 per month, less $2l So
paid him, making balance of S38 l5, and costs Of
Court.


c. C. Harris and L. McCully for Plaintiff.


A. b.. Bates for Defendants.


February 6, 1860.