The Hawaiian gazette., 1872-01-24

limited 70 the heirs OF the body, or bodies Of the
parents BY adoption and in examining the law o.
descent in the same State, as contained in the
revised Statutes, no reference is made to adopted
children. In this respect, it is an omission anal
OgOus to our own Code, and strongly confirm.
the construction the Court has given to it.
"By the ancient civil law, adoption created the
relation Of father and son, for all practical pur
/ poses, just as il the adopted son were born Of
the blood o. the adopted father in lawful mar
riage. The adopted child quilted entirely his
own family and entered the family Of his adopter
I passing under the paternal power Of his new
family, and acquiring the capacity to inherit
through him" Roman Law, by Lori Mac
keniie l22
Adoption was very common in Rome and was
considered a very useful Institution. In France
the usage was lost sitter the first race OF Kings,
but was re-established in 1892, and is now sane
toned by the Civil Code. There are many re-
strictous in the French Code IN affecting this
relationship; but in regard to the property of
the adopter himself the adopted person has pre-
cisely the same rights as a child born in mar.
riage, although there are other children born in
marriage after his adoption He retains all his
rights as a member of his natural family, but &C.
quiring no right of succession to the property Of
any relation Of the adopter
The practice of adoption still prevails among
the nations Of the East
It is conteuded that numerous instances can
be cited where children Of high chiefs were
adopted, and they did not inherit property by
virtue Of this relationship 1t is not made ap-
parent to the Court why they did not inherit,
but doubtless for the reason that they were not
adopted as children with the rights Of heirship.
In this country. the adoptions were of such
various relationship, some as temporary. and
others as permanent, that Court and Jury
must be satisfied that the adoption caused the
relationship Of a child Of the blood, so far as
kind treatment, support, and right Of inheritance
were concerned.
1t is further contended that il an adopted
child inherits to the exclusion Of the collateral
blood, the position of such a person would be
better than that OF the children of the blood Of
the adopting parents, as the child adopted might
inherit from two lots Of property under the civil
law, when the principle of adoption was very
generally recognized. This was never regarded
as Objectionable, acd why should it be 1t is a
contract made by the natural parents and adopt
ing parents for the highest good Of the child
But it must be remembered that the adopting
parent does not preclude himself from disposiug
Of his property by will as he pleases. The child
adopted, when entitled to heirship, can of course
have no greater rights than the child Of the
blood who is an heir but his inheritance may be
defeated by the viii of his parsat-
The Court is Of opinion that there were
children by adoption who were regarded in all
respects as ones own children, and that in the
enactment OF laws, the same terms were applied
10 them as to the children of the blood, that is.
they were regarded as the intestate's children.
The majority Of the Court are Of opinion that
there was, prior to the written law, a custom and
usage which recognized an adoption, Il clearly
defined IN the contract BY which the child
adopted might be an heir to the property of the
adopter.
The principle of adoption was cherished by
the Havaians BY their first written laws, there F..
was provision that the act Of adoption must be .
done in writing and before an officer to wit
ness the tanscton, otherwise the child could
not be transferred" And by the same law it .
was provided that when the parent dies. the child .
Is the heir, if there be any child living. And it .
is very evident that the word child. applied to
the adopted child, as well as to a child OF the .
blood. The law makers Of that DAY wisely pro-
vided that the contract OF adoption should be in
writing, that the rights of the parties should be
clearly understood. 1t is very clear that when
the child was transferred, it became the child in
law Of the adopting parent and to this class the
aw OF inheritance applied.
The law Of 1916 provides how sdoptious may
be legaIized, and so do the laws now in force.
As adoption was recognized by the ancient Gus
toms and has continued to be by the laws Of the
Kingdom, it is evident that it was relationship
sndeared TO the people, and regarded By them Of
he highest Importance. Is it reasonable to sup
pose then, that it impaired no rights-that il was
he relationship Of a day, and for a comparatively
inimportaRt purpose? To the Hawaiian, it was
sacred relation and having all.the rights duties
md obligations Of child Of the blood and the
opinion which the majority OF the Court enter
ain is, that by ancient custom and usage an
Idopted child was an heir of his adopted parents
when so stipulated, and that the same view Of
hese rights Of the adopted child was entertained
" the different Legislative bodies Of the King
lon, although the specific term is not used in the
aw Of descents.
But the evidence as to the right Of the ksiki-
,aHGi to inherit is somewhat conflicting and
he Court are uncertain what the intention Of the
dry was in rendering the verdict, By the terms
sed, and therefore they regard it as an act Of
lstiee to the parties, that a new trial should be
anted. The verdict is not clearly responsive to
he issue and it is the judgment Of the Court
hat the .erdict of the jury be set aside and
ew trial granted
-TDENASS, J.:
Kaaoaopa in this matter obtained the verdict
jary that she was EsiktAaaai Of the de-
eased and as such keiEi-dasGi, claims the estate.
he adoption IN this case was made long before
here we're any written laws IN the country.