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

issue three children who all died In
infancy that the said kamehaoka- |
lani died on or about January IL,
A. d. 1882, leaving heirs her husband,
your petitioner. and cousins, Her
Majesty Queen Kapiolani, Her High |
ness kapooluku and Her Highness
Kekaulike, since deceased as afore-
said
"'I5. That by her last will and
testament duly probated by the order
of this Court, issued and made De
cember 9th, A. d. 1882, your petit
toner was appointed executor of the
estate of the said Kamehaokalanl,
and letters testamentary issued to
him as such, and he still is such ex-
ecutor
.''16. That in A. D. 1855, as your
petitioner is informed and believes,
and so alleges upon information and
belief, at the time of the probate of
the said writing purporting to
be the last will and testament of the
said deceased Kealiiahonui, the said
kamehaokalani was minor under
the age of eighteen years, to wit, one
year of age, living on the island of
Kauai; her father was dead, having
died in 1854; her mother intrm and
on her death bed; that no one APP
peared to represent her, and the
Court did not appoint any person to
represent her at the said probate of
the said pretended will.
Wherefore your petitioner
prays that the order admitting the
paper writing purporting to be the
last will and testament OF the said
Kealilahonui, deceased, made on the
10Th day of February, A. d. 1856, be
revoked, and that the letters tesla
mentary issued to the said l.. HALE
lea be cancelled, and that your petit
toner, Junius Kaae, may be APP
pointed administrator OF the said
estate, and that due notice be given
to all persons interested to appear at
such time and place as this Court
may direct, and that the Court make
a time and place and issue process
summoning the said Her Majesty
Queen Kapiolani, Her Royal High
ness Virginia Kapooloku Poomaike-
lani, His Highness David Havana
nakoa and His Highness Jonah
Kuhio Kalanianaole to appear and
show cause, if any they have, why
the prayer of this petition should not
be granted.
"'And your petitioner will ever
pray, ETC.
"Mr. T. Nj. Hatch appears on be-
half of Anderia A. Haalelea and files
plea in bar as follows:
PLEA IN BAR.
"sAnd now comes Anderia A. Haa
lelea and shows the court that she is
the widow Of and devisee under the
will of L. Haalelea; that her said
husband was devisee under the viii
of Kekauonohi, who was the sole de.
visee of said Kealiiahonui, and thai
this respondent is interested in the
estate which was devised by the viii
of said Kealiiahonui.
"'And this respondent further
shows that petition was filed II
this Court on the I'd of July, A. d
1866 by Kapiolani ivy and D: Kala
kaua, her husband. Kapooloku wv
and Kanawai, her husband, Kinoik
(w) and Piikoi, her husband, Keluai
pihana IVY and F. w. Malaihi, hel
husband, and Kamehaokalani, {
minor, by F. w. Malaihi, her mex
friend, under whom said Kaae claims
praying for the revocation of the pro
bate of the will of said kealiahonu
upon the same grounds as are Sc
forth in the petition of said Kaae
on which petition judgment wa
given dismissing the same on thu
3Oth day of November, A. d. 1866.
Wherefore the respondent pray
Judgment if she should be held t.
make any further answer herein ant
that said petition may be dismissed
with costs
"Mr. j. Nj. Davidson appears TO
Her Majesty Queen Kapiolani.
Upon an examination of the re
cord of the case pleaded in bar,
find that an appeal was taken from
the decision of Mr.. Justice Robert
son, but was dismissed by the Cour
in banco, rs the bond was not filed il
time. A writ Of error was then az
piled for and issued, and after hear
ing, the Court says:
"'The Court are of opinion tina
this writ of error is not maintain
able, and that plaintiff in error tax
nothing by his writ It also appear
that Kamehaokalani lat that time Il
years of age), through whom thi
, petitioner claims, was party to al
of these proceedings and appeared
by T. w. Malaihi, her next friend
but petitioners counsel contend
that the infant, Kamehaokalani, wa
not represented in the former case
as the record does not show tina
Malaihi appeared by leave of tn
Court, or was appointed as mex
friend, as required by the rule o
Court, which reads as follows: Jan
uary Term, 1861. It is hereby OF
dered that in every suit hereafter t
be instituted in this Court on behal
of minor, by his prochein ANA o
next friend, it shall be incumbent Oh
the party DESTROYS of suing in tina
capacity, to obtain the sanction o
the Court, or of one of the Justice
, thereof before the issuing of pro
cess
, "There is no question that at th
time of that suit this rule was il
, force and would have to be compiled
! with. Yet could not hold that i
must be done in writing, although a
| the present time the practice is t.