Territory Hawai`i v. Yuen

• Decision Date: 10 February 1908
• Parties: TERRITORY OF HAWAII v. SING YUEN.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

18 Haw. 611

TERRITORY OF HAWAII

v.SING YUEN.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Argued February 10, 1908.

Decided February 10, 1908.

APPEAL FROM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HONOLULU.

Syllabus by the Court

A penal statute prohibiting the sale of “benzole, petroleum, or any oils of which the component part is naptha or gasoline” below a certain standard does not, particularly in view of the restricted use of the phrase “ component part” in adjoining sections, prohibit the sale of pure gasoline below the prescribed standard.

W. L. Whitney, Deputy Attorney General ( C. R. Hemenway, Attorney General, with him on the brief), for Territory.

C. F. Clemons ( Thompson & Clemons on the brief) for plaintiff.

HARTWELL, C.J., WILDER AND BALLOU, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY BALLOU, J.

Upon the defendant's admission that he had sold gasoline within the Territory which gives off an inflammable vapor at a temperature of less than one hundred degrees Fahrenheit, he was convicted of a violation of R. L. Sec. 972, reading as follows:

“It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to sell within this Territory, benzole, petroleum, or any oils of which the component part is naptha or gasoline, which gives off an inflammable vapor at a temperature of less than one hundred degrees Fahrenheit; and whoever shall sell, give or furnish, to any person in this Territory benzole, petroleum, or any oils of which the component part is naptha or gasoline, which gives off an inflammable vapor at a temperature of less than one hundred degrees Fahrenheit, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by a fine not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment at hard labor not more than one year, or both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.”

Defendant's appeal on points of law from this conviction presents the questions as to whether he was guilty of a violation of the statute and whether the statute is unconstitutional as an interference with interstate commerce or an unreasonable exercise of police power. We find it necessary to consider only the first point, which resolves itself into the question as to whether pure gasoline is included within the description of “any oils of which the component part is naptha or gasoline.”

If the section were to be construed solely with reference to its own language this question might present some difficulty, but the phrase “any oil (oils) of which the...