Rex v. Yat Sing
Hawaii Supreme Court
A complete answer to this objection is the fact that the opium which this prisoner was convicted of selling was proven at the trial to have* been bought by him some two months before the sale of which he was convicted, and at that date the law which authorized the sale of opium by licensed dealers was not in force, but had become abrogated by the law under discussion.
Read the full summary
A complete answer to this objection is the fact that the opium which this prisoner was convicted of selling was proven at the trial to have* been bought by him some two months before the sale of which he was convicted, and at that date the law which authorized the sale of opium by licensed dealers was not in force, but had become abrogated by the law under discussion. Morever, the sale of opium by any other than licensed dealers or physicians was forbidden by the former laws above referred to. Here we must notice the failure on the part of the prisoner to show that this opium which he had in…
1Opinion of the Court
These eases were considered together as involving similar principles.
The “ opium law ” of 1874, held to be not unconstitutional or retrospective.
The prisoner Yat Sing is indicted for selling opium, contrary to the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of August 8th, 1874, entitled “An Act to restrict the importation and sale of opium.” Section 1 of this Act makes a penal offense, the importing, selling, giving or furnishing opium or any preparation thereof to any person in this kingdom, except as provided for in Section 2 of the Act. The second section authorizes the importation of opium by the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Republic of Hawaii v. Lee YickHawaii Supreme Court · 1895