The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-01-22

statute makes no exception, the court
can make none on the ground of any
inherent equity applicable to Infants
In reviewing the cases which enlarge
upon the policy of statutes of limita-
ton, to quiet possession and eXtin-
guish dormant claims, the Chancellor
says: According to an expression
of Lord Eldon, right might travel
through minorities for two centuries.
1t would be impolitic as well as con-
trary to established rule to depart
from the plain meaning and literal
expression of the proviso in the stat
ute of limitatiOns;" and on page 40
of the decision the Judge says: tThe
doctrine of any inherent equity Great
ing an exception as to any disability,
where the statute of limitation creates
none, has been long and, l believe,
uniformly exploded. General words
in the statute must receive a general
construction and if there be no ex-
press exception, the Court can create
none.u
We believe this rule to be estab-
lished beyond controversy.
Hall rs. BuDlStead, 20 Pick, s.
Rockford rs. Wade, II Vesey, Jr., 81.
Bell as. Morrison, Peters, $50.
This view is decisive of this case.
The statute made no eXception in
favor of infants, and we can make
none. By Section of the Act Great
ing the Land Commission, it was to
make its decisions ain accordance
with the principles established by the
Civil Code of this Kingdom in regard
to prescription, occupancy, fixtures,
native usages in regard to landed
tenures, water privileges and rights
of piscary, the rights of women, the
rights Of d6SenteeS, tenancy and sub
tenancy-primogeniture and rights OF
1t is to be noticed that the subject
of "infancyn is not mentioned. This
is an additional reason for not adj
hitting the disability of infancy as
an exception to the statute. Claims
of infants were presented sby their
parents or guardians. a large num-
Der of awards to Lunalilo and Victoria
Kamamalu show this. These high
chiefs who succeeded to the lands of
Kekauluohi and Kinau respectively,
both being infants at the time of the
presentation of their claim@ received
awards for land exceeding any other
claimants in number and extent.
1t is also very significant that Ke-
kuanaoa, the father of Lot Kameha-
meha, presented other claims to land
in behalf of his son, upon which
awards were made. BY the law of
this country at that time he was the
proper one to make such application.
In u. K. L0d3luj rs. PttOhU ct. al, 2
Haw., 162, the Supreme Court per
Allen, c. j., said: "By the common
law Of this Kingdom, prior to the
enactment of a law regulating guar
dams and wards approved 4th August,
1851, guardians had from time imme-
mortal possessed and exercised the |
absolute right to dispose of the real !
and personal estate of their wards as
might suit their own will.n The case |
tdnO ct a., 3 Haw., lis, has greater |
for the plaintiff is the |
same person from whom defendants |
claim in the case at bar. Here Ke- |
was not the probate guardian
If Lot Kamehameha, but he was his
ather, and Judge Robertson, for the
Court, says, as against the objection
made, that he was not the guardian |
If the PLAINTIFFS estate, and could not |
make legal dedication of the right |
If way in question: "That Governor
[ekuanaoa, in 1S4S, as the natural
guardian of the plaintiff, rightfully
lad and exercised, under the law of
his Kingdom, the control and man
cement of the PLAINTIFFS property,
s, we think, too clear Il proposition
o admit OF a question; and that any
rant of way over the plaintiffs land,
II any conveyance 1OhateUer of any
art Of his estate, made by Governor
Lekuanaoa during PLAINTIFFS min
rity, and before the enactment of
section "a of the Act regulating
'uardians and wards passed on the
Durth day or August, 1851, must be
Onsidered absolutely conclusive and
hiding upon the rights of the plain
lift is, in our opinion, equally clear"
Finding, then, that there was dur
lg all the time when claims for land
,ere required to be made before the
and Commission, a person compe-
3nt in all respects to make such claim
II this land in behalf of Lot Kane
amelia, the statute ran against him.
he acts of KekuanaOa as father and
atural guardian of Lot J{ameha- ]
leha bound his infant ward in res [
ect to claims before the Land Com ;
lission as fully and conclusively as
they had been done by Lot Kane
amelia himself, if of full age.
But it is said that an infant is not
H. I, 60. ,f /,
act for him when such failure is
'ejudicial to the minor. This would l
ot be true statement of the law as
existed in this country in 1850 {
he time of the Land Commission), c
I if, as we have seen, the law was G
lat all acts of guardian or father a
no guardian be appointed respect
& the disposition of an infants pro-
,rty bound the infant, his failure 10 t
'esent q claim for land is an TACT q
e consequences of which would be t
ually binding upon the infant. 1t $
ust be admitted that, if Kekuanaoa d
I'd made an appearance before the il
and Commission, and had dis a
aimed any interest of his ward o
this land, or had surrendered the
me by conveyance, it would have \
und the ward and it follows as ft
tural inference that as some affir-
ative action was required by statute
all claimants to land, and as moth G
g was required of those who did not
Tim land, a failure to claim would c;
can the same thing as formal Of
claration that the infant had no CT
i'm to the land. a
But if it be conceded, for the pur- q