The Hawaiian gazette., 1871-08-30
WEDNESDAY. AUG. 80, 1871.
Supreme Court-In Baneo.
lANuARY rERN. ISL.
A"t--s ASfAs
ALLEN, C J., HARTwELL, !, w1DzMAxx, !.

ALLEN, c. J., HARTwELL, !, wIDEMANN, J.
Estate Of HlnaGb Mag9ida. Deceased hiestGts
By the judgment Of the nsjority Of the Court
articles of adoption have not the effect of making
the adopted child an heir
ALLxS. c. J. The Appellant was adopted as
the child of Hannah Maughan by the articles oil
agreement as follows, viz:
Articles of agreement made and concluded
this twenty-seventh day of August, a. d. 1855
between Moewale. the father and only surviving
parent Of Pauahi. female child about thirteen
years old, and Hannah Maughan, of Honolulu
VitHsSSeth That the said MOewale does hereby
give unto the said Hannah Maughau, his child
the said Pauahi. to be adopted by her as her own
child, and doth release all cootrol aud right over
the said child unto the said Hannah Maughan. in
consideration Of the covenants hereinafter entered
into by the said Hannah Maughan, and the said
Hannah Vaughan agrees to adopt the said Pauahi
as her own child, aud to clothe edacate. and in
every way care for the said child as becomes the
duty of good parent. As witness our hands
and seals the day and year first above written.
| Signed MoEwALE
(Signedl HANNAH MAUGHAS.r
Which were duly acknowledged and recorded as
follows, VIZ. Personally appeared before me the
above-named Moewale and Hannah Maughan,
and acknowledged that they had executed the
written instrument for the purposes therein men
toned. In witness whereof have hereunto set
/ my hand and caused to be affixed the Seal of the
/ Supreme Court at Honolulu, Oahu this 9th day
Of August, A. D., 1855.
(Siguedj G. NJ RoBgRrsoy.
Associate Justice Of the Supreme Court 50
REGrsrsARs oFF1cE.
Honolulu, Jaly 18th, 1862
Il hereby certify that the foregoing is true
and correct copy of an instrument on record IN
this office in Gber :, on pages 769 and 10, of
Miscellaneous Records.
Signed THOMAS Brown,
Registrar of ConYeyances.
And the question is, has she, by virtue of this
agreement, aay rights Of inheritancei
Had 1t been expressly stated that the child
should inherit it is admitted by one of my Asso-
ciates that such stipulation would have enabled
her to do so. There can be no doubt that there
was an adoption. which was recognized in ancient
times as giving the right of inheritance. 1t was
very wisely determined by the Legislature thst
this relationship. which was regarded by the
HaEaiiaus as very sacred, should be established
in writing. so that it should not depend on tes,i-
mouy which might become uncertain from length
OF time.
In the case Of Abenela vs.. Kailikole, Vol 2.
Hawaiian Rep, 600. the Court say, al that all
agreements of adoption, which are of great iu-
portanee as affecting the rights of property,
should be made in writing and duly recorded, and
as no compliance with this requirement has been
showu. in the present case, the plaintiff can not
prevail 1t was very clearly the opinion of the
Court, that had the adoption been made in writ
ing, the party would have inherited. Now in
this case the person was adopted, and is entitled
to al the rights of an adopted child as understood
1t Is very true that the terms of the adoption
must be definitely stipulated in the agreement
l regard the stipulation Us conveying the rights
OF inheritance, whea it declares that &" the said
Hannah MaUghan agrees to adopt the said Pau
ali as her own child, and to clotbe, educate, and
in every way care for the said child as becomes
the duty Of good parent"
Now, under the laws of inheritance every
where, ones own child inherits the estate of the
parent, as in our own Code is it caring for the
child as becomes the duty Of good parent, to
leave the child without some suitable provision ,
Had that been the law as understood by the
parents, there can be no doubt that some pro-
vision would have been made for her.
regard the meaning, adopted child" as sy-
uouymous with child, in its legal effect. As
when Statute declares that the property shall
be divided equally among the intestate children.
II includes all children, whether by adoption or
6y blood, and hence it vas unnecessary to make
an express provision for each. What can be more
expressive than the language used in these
articles, that the said Hannah Maughan agrees
TO adopt the sad Paqahi as her own child An
- own child inherits under the Law, Why then |
should not the child adopted as an own child |
Inherit In view Of the customs and usaees of 4
the Hazaiiaus in reIatiOu to adopted children.
and 10 view Of the express language Of the
articles Of agreement, can there be doubt that /
wheu they speak Of their children, they include 1
those adopted as well as those BY blood Hence
It sas rot regarded as necessary to be 50 explicit
Is Is here eontended. It could not have been the
idea Of Mrs Maughan, that the moment she died
the Perzon whom she had adopted as her Own
shlId, stoqId be hoazeIsss and homeIess. That
vas not the idea Of the HasaiIaus. and it vas
not, zz think, the idea Of the Legislature when
they made shat provision that the articles Of
adoption should be in zritiag. The object was
to make the relationship clear and well defined,
and ny oFu opIhi0u Is, that if child IS adopted
a. ouss oEa, II L adopted for all good purposes.
and that the important one Of inheritance is SCI
Cared TIE counsel for the contestant has argued
very siaborztsly upon the unjust consequences
which viii rssgIt to collateral bloOd relatives, If
this priGcipls Of adoption ob,zins- Every persou
las right TO dispose Of bis property a. he
pIeases, andsF the law. and be bas right 70
adops child. and secure his property to that
child Usually, I suppose, persons adopt
-hiId zEeu they have n0ae Of their oEn. IN IL
stances of this kind the aEsctions Of the persons