The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-08-01

in that capacity. Ii seems to me by !
allowing process TO issue on that |
petition, the Justice gave his sane
ton, and that the minor kamehao-
kalani was properly represented in
Court. The legal presumption (cer-
tainly at this distance of time) is,
that all things in a judicial proceed
ing which ought TO be done, were
done. find in the record of the
former case, that Mr.. &. G. Harris,
one of the respondents, referring to
the minor says: kamehaokalani
is still minor and here
by next friend But coun-
sci for Mrs. Haalelea, the
respondent in this case contends that
even the utter failure to procure the
appointment of a next friend is only
an irregularity to be taken advan-
tage of by motion at the time, and
does not affect the jurisdiction of the
Court.
The Court entertained jurisdic-
ton in the former case.
The general rule is that the
omission to procure the appointment
of guardian or proehein ami for the
infant plaintiff is no ground for non
suit and can only be taken advantage
of as an irregularity by motion.
cit is not indispensable in all
cases that the proceedings show
formal order Of Court admitting a
next friend or guardian to prosecute
the suit for an infant plaintiff; the
leave OF the Court may be inferred
from its entertaining the action in
its early stages
"Tyler on Infancy and Coveture,
2 Ed. PIP. 1876 and 1877.
''There are a number of cases cited
In support of the above.
"'An infant is bound by decree
in a cause where he is plaintiff, and
after coming of age he is not allowed
by new bill to dispute anything
that was done during his minority.
The rule of law is, that an infant is
as much bound by Judgment in his
own action as person Of full age,
Gregory VS.. Wordsworth 3 Atk.
626.
"Chitty Equity Index, vol. 5, p,
1853.
1t is contended that in any case
of improper action by prochein ami
where the infant might obtain relief
the application to the Court must be
made by the infant promptly on be-
coming Of age, otherwise the infants
silence will amount to confirmation
| This contention / understand to be
correct, persons cannot sleep on THEN
rights for all time. In this case the
infant who was sixteen years of age
at the time of the former case was
decided, lived until 1862. consequent
ly she slept on her rights (if she had
any for about sixteen years remain
ing silent up to the time of bel
death, and her husband, the petit
toner, has remained silent for abou
eight years. In the case of Thurstor
VS.. Bishop VII Hawaiian Repts, thu
Court held that it was the duty of /,
minor to assert his claim within {
reasonable time after his coming tx
full age.
"After careful examination of THU
case, and of the authorities, I con
slider THAT the petitioner is estoppet
from what would amount to a re
hearing of the original petition il
the case before Mr.. Justice Robert
son. Both that petition and the ON
in this case allege the same ground
why the probate should be revoked
viz: That the will is a forgery.
"The plea in bar is sustained"
By THE Court.
We support the decision appealed
; from.
The rule which required 18th,
sanction of the Court, or of one o
the Justices thereof, before the issu
, ing of process" upon the application
of one DESTROYS of suing as a mex
|; friend of a minor, was substantial,
complied with. The Judges orde
for the issue of process endorsed
upon the petition, was sufficien
sanction" or authority for the per
son DESTROYS of acting as the mex
, friend of the minor, to act through
out the proceedings in such capacity
; Moreover, the minor in question
: was joined with several adult plain
. tiffs, and all were represented b,
counsel, and the case heard upon it
merits. There is no claim that tn
: case was not fully and adequatel,
presented and tried
June 25th, 1890.
. G. L. Carter for petitioner, az
!; pellant.
!. f. M. Hatch for Mrs. Haalelea
! one of the respondents.