The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1869-10-02
The circuit court at Lahaina.

On the 22d, ODD, and 9th days of September,
4 very important cause was heard at Lahaina,
before the Hon. A. j. Lawrence, Circuit Judge
Of Maui.
1t was a petition to set aside a Judgment of the
same Court an the matter of the estate of Kama
kini, made on the 23d day of March, A. ID.
1919, for alleged errors in matters of law and
upon a matter Of fact, viz the birth Of n postum
nous child Of the ~testator subsequent to the
judgment. The title to n valuable and desirable
property situated in Iahaina is involved in the
issue Of this suit.
Upon two motions or Henry Thompson, Esq,
counsel for the respondent, Kahekili, the ono n
motion in the nature OF u Plea to the jurisdiction
Of the Court TO resciDd any decree or Judgment,
the other a motion TO dismiss the petition. in the
nature of n motion for n nonsuit, the cause was
exhaustively argued by the respondents counsel
and byJ W. ii. Kauwahi, Esq., who appeared as
counsel for the petitioner, Naaoa-
The Court overruled the former motion, stating
that while there was any possibility of the petit
toner being able to put IN evidence under her
petition Of facts sufficient to Justify the Court in
granting the prayer Of the petition, it was the
duty of the Court to permit the party to intro
ddNt wi tffN<a~~ eo ~ y oarE1"
petition "a operating in avoidance Of the Judgment
might appear to have happened at such a time
and to have been associated with such other Cir
cumstances rs would entitle the petitioner to the
relief prayed for, and that without giving any de-
cided opinion upon the issues raised by counsel, it
having a due regard to the constitution and the
modes Of procedure of the early courts Of this
kingdom and the nationality and condition of the
parties, it could not ut that stage of the cause ap-
ply the law in all its strictness to the petition.
Upon the second motion, after the petitioners
evidence had all been introduced and full argu-
ment by the respective counsel, the Court dis
missed the petition, observing that having gone
to the extreme limit of the law in order To enable
the petitioner, if possible. to establish her right
to the relief oil the Court upon the petition, it
felt constrained to hold that she could obtain no
relief upon such showing under such a petition,
consistently with legal rules and the rights of the
respondent, as the prayer of the petition and the
only remedy which seemed open to her differed so
widely, adding that relief seemed to be open to
her only upon an express application to revoke
the will, by establishing an ~intestacy as to a
posthumous child, &C., or else the probate thereof,
before the Court OF probate.
There were many other important legal ques-
tiors started, such rs the effect of the lapse of
time as n bar in a Court Of Probate, The doctrine
of e~stoppels by matter of record or by matter in
&C., upon which however the Court did
not rest its judgment.
On n subsequent day another petition was
presented to the Court by the petitioners counsel
but on the suggestion Of the Court that it was
substantially the same as the one already pro-
nounced upon, it was withdrawn and another
prepared more nearly setting forth the nature of
the relief available to the petitioner, and it was
set to he heard next December, by agreement of
counsel.
There was an unusually large number of spec
tators during the progress Of the cause, betoken-
ing nm intense degree Of interest in the public
mind Of Iafaina and Maui ~ to the result of the
suit, and the Court displayed singular ability,
tact and patience in the conduct and the decision
of the cause.