Legal Opinion

Territory of Hawaii v. Miguel

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided September 20, 1907PublishedCited by 23 opinions

APPJSAL PROM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HONOLULU.

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

HARTWELL, C.J.

The defendant was charged July 8, 1907, before the district magistrate of Honolulu with selling in Honolulu July 6, 1907, *403certain intoxicating liquor, known as beer, contrary to tbe provisions of Act 119, Laws of 1901. ILe admitted tbe selling without a license. Tbe prosecution admitted that be beld a license under Act 61, Laws of 1905, wbicb expired June 80, 1907, and that the beer was part of tbe stock beld by bim while bolding tbe license; that he applied for a license under Act 119 and was refused by the board of license commissioners; also that before…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. United States v. CoombsSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
  3. Myer v. Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
  4. Miller v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
  5. People v. GadwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Schwab v. AriyoshiHawaii Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Bishop v. MahikoHawaii Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Re Sprinkle Chow Liquor LicenseHawaii Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Agana Bay Development Company (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Supreme Court of Guam, Dillingham Corporation of the Pacific, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
  5. Damon v. Shinjiro TsutsuiHawaii Supreme Court · 1930

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API