Legal Opinion · Dissent

Territory of Hawaii v. Hu Seong

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided October 30, 1911Published

Arpear jbom District Magistrate oe Honolulu.

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION OP

ROBERTSON, C.J.

I have to dissent. The statute prohibits the selling or furnishing of opium except by the holder of a license to sell poisonous drugs, upon the written prescription of a duly licensed physician. The charge entered against the defendant was of furnishing only. The uncontradicted evidence before the district magistrate showed a sale. 'The question is whether, upon a charge of furnishing opium the defendant can be convicted upon evidence that'he sold opium.

According to the dictionaries the word “furnish” means “give,” “supply” or “provide.” In, Republic v.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. FreemanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
  2. Harvey v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Republic of Hawaii v. AkauHawaii Supreme Court · 1898
  4. State v. DeustingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
  5. Wood v. Territory of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 1856

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

Powered by the Exa API