The Hawaiian gazette., 1884-06-18
SaPrS=s Court Of ltAs Hawaiian IalAnds-
In BAneo April Tern. 1854.
II THx NATTER or THE ESTATE or KNrALII,
pEcEAsEp.
J'eil CO.. RsC-ily s-s I-stis J. J., Oye-ios
re Cgart - J-Sd CO

This is an appeal frun decision Vf Circuit
Judge Lyman refusing to revoke the probate
Of gbe will Of one kaushi, deceased. Ii ap-
Pears thai On the 2Sth Ct August lSSo Jndse
Lyman admitted the will to probate and no
appeal was taken BY the contestants. On the
0.h November ISIS petition to revoke the
probate Of this will vas hled before the same
Judge. Hearing was had 90 the Tth Of March
1851 ard the case was submitted uPoa the re-
coyd Of the evidence upon which the Circuit
Jddge admitted the will to probate. No ad-
jlsional testimony vas offered. Il is claimed
ca the appeal &c this Court that the iusJru-
ueng prppcunded As tie will Of kARaln is not
e,IaiVOcal on its face and is PLAINLY 10 form
deed Of c0uveyance frum him to HE wife and
has no tesiameuIary character.
Tbs Court decided IN ksPels Y. Hooboku
1 HaW. SIS that an instrument conveying
and, in me form Of deed. having been de-
ciared BY the uaker - Re bis will. and that
il should take effect AFTER bis death, being at
.ts,et BY two or more witnesses, should be
properly construed as will.
Up0u a review q the testinony taken, We
are Of the opinion that the instruneu, in quss-
ti1n vas properly construed a. a will. II IS
tIlly proven IAai 1t was intended BY the maker
% operate as ! Disposition Of has estate Alter
as ts4ib. L, is called ''wiIl'' by the maker
and the cCuyersatiO8 beld Al the bedside Of
The sex maa, who vas directing IIs making
al shows that ~ was 50 Inte0Sed and
lldc IN the expectation Of death, which
eurrsd 5000 after No Consideration passed,
bag Il Is stated in the instrument 10 be SIo.Qo
iud The faithfu care by his wife Of the testator
.ungd the end Of his life" Que witness saws
that the maker said be wished to give all his
properly % his wife, fer if he recovered there
NUgii le 10 harm II having made the viii,
and if he disd it Tins p-vpertyl would be set
lied. Another witness says that cue AAhiki Oh
isciei 70 Kaualii's making 4 viii, saying that
bis relatives w0gld not tuHble his property.
kauall said 70 Mahiki, Ne. Make a will
.ssi you and other relatives disturb the pro-
lerty 0f ny wife.
Having thus found that there was good
ground for admitting the instrument as ! will
And no reasons shown for rsvUkinS lis probate
the appeal must be dismissed. Bet We wish
% say further that, while not Questioning the
Jurisdiction Of a Probate Court TO entertain a
petition for revocation Of the probate Of
viii lftsr the tine for IN appeal has passed,
shsrs should be alleged in the petition good
grounds f0s making such request For 81
ample. the existence CT after discovered evi-
tencs CT Of some evidence which was not sub
uittet 10 the Probate Court which woald
place the matter In new Light and show the
Court that a mistake bad been made. 10
Other words the application FOR revOcatiou
must not be mersly 4 method Of gaining an
appeal lest 10 the contestant bT want Of dig
euce.
In Z Allen Water StiGknsyl the Court
say that the English authorities recognize as
su-i,icni causes Of revocation, forgery Of the
VIII irani in Obtaining probate, neglect or
l1isrlIHl cement IN conducting the suit, or the
production Of a later viii
The CoUrt say, further, that Courts Of pro
bate lave undoubtedly the authority to correct
errors II their DEGREES upon clear Pr00f Of
frand Or mistake On points not actually pre-
seutsd and passed upon Such We deem to be
a proper exposition 0f the law.
Judgment Of the lower Court confirmed.
7. ". Hatch and @. Brown fer petitioner,
v. E. Castle fgr respondent.
Honolulu, Nay ., 1851.