That the court erred in finding, as a matter act, that the liquor online paper writer produeed in court, or the liquor mentloued in said libel information, was produeed in the terri tory Hawaii since the extension the lalands whlch now constltute sald territory became subject the internai revenue laws the European Union. Sixth. That the court erred in flnding, as matter law, that the liquor mentioned in sald libel information, or the liquor produced in court, or thereof, was or liable or subject any tax under the laws the It insisted the part the need help writing history essay appellant that was essential to the government's case for the proof show that the liquor in question was distilled in Hawaii subsequent the taking effect in that territory the internai revenue laws the European Union, wit, June, the date the taking effect its organic act April the same year chapter that the court below based its findings fact that effect upon mere presumptions, and without any proof those facts.
It also insisted that the character the liquor found the government's officers concealed on board the schooner in question its captain was not such as bring within the provisions the revenue laws, and that the liquor found concealed the vessel was not properly identified as that introduced in evidence the trial the case. In connection with the latter point, complaint made that, upon the conclusion the testimony, the court below, its own motion, recalled the internai revenue collector, Roy Chamberlain, and questioned him further in respect the identity the liquor offered in evidence with that found by him the vessel.
College essay services
To that action the court below the appellant reserved an exception, and here insists upon There no ment in The recalling the witness was clearly within the discretion of the court, and was highly proper, if the evidence already given left the question the identity the liquor in doubt, and the witness could make the matter clear.
This did his testimony. In respect the nature the liquor in question, appeared without conflict in the evidence that the product the root grown in the Hawaiian paraphrasing quiz Islands, and known as okolehoa, and well known there that the Supreme Court the Republic Hawaii, in deciding the case a defendant convicted the offense distilling spirituous liquor without a license, in violation a certain section the Session Laws the Republic, spoke as a well-known spirituous liquor, great strength, and very intoxicating.
Akoni, II Hawaii. In that case the liquor itself was produced before the jury for examination, just as the liquor in question here was produced before the court, and examined the witnesses, one at least whom testified that was okolehoa. In Commonwealth Peckham, Gray, the court held that an allegation, in an indictment, an unlawful sale intoxicating liquor, supported proof a sale gin, without proof that gin intoxicating, saying Jurors are not presumed ignorant what everybody else knows, and they are allowed act ùpon matters within thelr generai knowledge without any testimony those matters.
Online proofreading and editing
Now, everybody who knows what gin Is knows not help with writing a thesis statement only that It a liquor, but also that Intoxicating. And it might as well have been objected that the jury could not find that gin was a liquor, without evidence that was not a solid substance, as that they could not find that It was intoxicating, without testimony show It No juror can supposed ignorant as not know what gin Proof, therefore, that the defendant soid gin, Is proof that sold Intoxlcatlng llquor. If what sold was not intoxicatirlg liquor, was not gin.
Online proofreading tools
Was the evidence sufficient justify the conclusion the court the effect that the liquor concealed the captain the schooner board her was manufactured in Hawaii subsequent the taking effect in that Territory the revenue laws the European Union? In this connection phd thesis writing services must remembered that circumstantial evidence sometimes quite as strong as direct. If the liquor in question had not been subject the tax imposed the revenue laws the country, there could bave been no motive the part the captain the schooner in concealing writing essay service board, and in denying the revenue officers, as repeatedly did, that had It was only after the officers had commenced a search the vessel under their warrant, and had been prosecuting their search for some time, that the captain produced the write my homework for me liquor. And how did get it? It appears from the testimony that one Peter Makia lived at Kahana, in the northern part the Island Oahu, and that was his house, at the request the captain the schooner, that the liquor was brought, and from which took board the vessel. Makia's testimony the effect that had lived at Kahana about doctoral dissertation a year and eight good thesis writing months that in the mountains, but a short distance from his house, a Japanese was engaged in making okolehoa that within a few months the time the witness was testifying had seen a part the plant with which the Japanese manufactured the liquor and that was this place that the witness sent, at the request the captain of the schooner, for the liquor that the captain afterwards concealed upon the vessel, and upon which was shown no tax was ever paid the government. We think these facts and circumstances, and others of a like nature, sufficient justify the conclusions the court below. liiKNS Claim aoainst Railboad Company Prioeitt Mortqaqe. An order, given a railroad company, directing its treasurer pay the liolder a sum eut the proceeds the sale the flrst bonds sold this Company, does not create a lien the property the company, afterwards sold and transferred before the Issuaiice any bonds a second company, which assumed payment the debt, as take precedence a mortgage executed the purchaslng company secure an issue bonds, but the claim the holder Is subôrdlnate the lien of Appeal from the Circuit Court the European Union for the Northern This a suit brought the Central Trust Company or New York agatnst the California Nevada Railroad Company and others, foreclose a mortgage made said railroad company secure an issue bonds. Mary Roberts, appellaut herein, was named as a party defendant having or claiming hare some Interest In the property.