The Hawaiian gazette., 1873-08-13


Kamaka and the Court as well, and hence
it is the duty of the Court to reopen the
case. review the Judgment Of the Probate
Court, and order new distribution.
1t is not denied by the counsel for the
complainants that the real estate set forth
in the will as devised to Kamaka was her
property in her own right, and it is adj
mitted that she is entitled to the devise
of $500, as therein declared. And he ad-
mits further that Kamaka is entitled to
Just allowance in all the residue of the
property of Achu by virtue of the law OF
this Kingdom which declares that wo-
man shall be so entitled, when she shall
be deceived into contracting an illegal
marriage with a man having another wife
living, under the belief that he is an I'M
married man.-Sect. 1915.
1t is contended by the counsel for the
defendants that Kalaukapu has the right
of inheritance as an adopted child, but
this question was settled adversely in the
case of "In re Hannah Vaughan" at the
January Term, 1871, and the articles of
adoption in the case of Hannah Vaughan
and those of Kalaukapu are the same in
terms, and include no declaration of heir
ship, which the Court said was necessary.
By the letter of instructions of Achu,
it fully appears that he intended that all
the residue of his property not included
in the will should become the property of
his heirs in China, especially his wife and
mother and his adopted son, Mon Tue.
1t is very evident that Achu did not in
tend to give to Kamaka and Kalaukapu
any more of his property than what was
set forth in his will.
In Section 1890, Civil Code, it is de-
clared, that marriages legal in the coun-
try where contracted shall be held legal
in the Courts of this Kingdom" 1t is
very evident from the testimony, and from
the letter of instructions of Achu himself
to Along and Achuck, that Ching See was
his lawful wife according to the laws of
China and Wei See his mother
1t has been contended that polygamy is
recognized in China and therefore there
can be no legitimate inheritance by wife.
The witness who was present at the mar
rage describes the ceremonies, and it is
said that they are every where the same,
or similar, and that the Chinese have only
one wife, but often have concubines. That
the wife inheritS This is in accordance
with the most reliable accounts we nave
of their domestic relations. They have
provided for the undoubted succession of
the inheritance by disallowing more than
one wife. The position of the wife taken
by prescribed formalities and that of the
women purchased as concubines, without
them, are accurately defined, and the de-
| graduation of the former or the elevation
of tho Latter as Interchange their
places on the taking of a second woman,
are all illegal and void. And had Achu
been properly instructed, he would have
carried out his intention as expressed in
his will and in his letter of instructions to
Along and Yeong Sheong.
Achu refers to Mon Tue as his adopted
child, but the evidence is not sufficient to
give him a right of inheritance. His
counsel declares that he claims nothing for
Mon Tue.
1t appears that Along never assumed
the duties of executor by positive acts,
although his name has been used in con-
nection with the estate, but without evil
dence of authority, and therefore l am of
opinion that he should be discharged from
liability, but he is not entitled to costs, as
he should have taken interest enough in
the business to have signifed his de-
clination.
l am of opinion that Yeong Sheong
made fraudulent inventory In with hold
ing property which belonged to the estate.
He acted in part under the will and in
part under the letters of instructions of
Achu, and it is evident that the mother
and wife of Achu, in China were misled
in relation to their rights of property here
Kamaka was misled as to her rights, as
il was not made known in Court that
there were any other claimants to the pro-
perty than herself and the alleged adopt
ed child here.
The Court declare the distribution as
made by the Probate Court as void, and
revoke the same, as the inventory was
fraudulent, and notice of material facts in
regard to the kindred in China, which
affected their rights as well as the right of
the person he married here, was withheld.
The counsel for the compliments do not
contest the validity of the will, but ac
quiesce in its probate, and the only claim
made by them is to recover the residue OF
the personal property which belonged
to the estate of the said Achu, which
was received by the Executor Yeong
Sheong
An order is hereby made on Edward