The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-04-13

OPINION OF THE COURT BY BIcKERToS, J.
This case was tried at the January
Term, 1891, and the presiding Justice
directed a verdict for the defendant.
The plaintiff excepted to the charge
of the Court and also to the verdict
as contrary to the law and the evil
dence, and gave notice of motion
for a new trial, which motion on be-
ing heard was overruled, aud the
matter now comes here on q bill Of
exceptions.
The plaintiff claims that the de-
PENDANT rs assignee in bankruptcy
of her husbands estate, upjustly
seized and took into his possession,
three horses and cart, that they
were her own property by exchange
and purchase, with her own money,
that she acquired these animals be.
fore the year 1883, about the year
1884 and 1856. That her husband
had never reduced this property in
dispute to his possession or asserted
his rights to said chsttels. The de-
| PENDANT claimed that these chattels
were the property Of the bankrupt
and are part of the assets of his
estate.
In June, 1888, an Act relating to
the property and rights of married
women, was approved and became
law; it provides inter ALA that, "the
real and personal property OF a
woman shall, upon her marriage, re-
main her separate property. free
from the management, control,
debts and obligations of her hus-
band; and a married woman may re-
ceive, receipt for, hold, manage and
dispose of property, real and per-
sonal, in the same manner as il she
were SOLE" Section Ii
reads, Nothing in this Act con-
tanned shall affect any rights of
property which shall have already
accrued under any law heretofore in
existence" 1t is not claimed, nor is
it shown that any of this property
was acquired after the Act Of 1888
came into force, so the law as it
stood previous to the said Act must
apply to this case; there is no neces-
sity to go outside of our own reports
for this, for it is clearly laid down in
II. Riemenschneider, administrator,
vs.. Kalaehao, With Haw. Rep. p. $50
In that case the Court charged the
jury as follows: eff you find that
those hacks, etc, were bought with
money received from her Ii. g., in
testate's wife) lands, and from
the earnings of her horses and CARR
ages subsequently,you will find them
to be the property of her husband.
Anything in her possession, whether
bought with her own or her hus
bands money, belongs to him and is
his own property, and goes to his
administrators" In regard to the
exception taken to this instruction
the Court says: we think that the
jury were properly instructed"
This case controls the case before
us, and lays down the law as we I'M
derstand it to have been previous to
the Act of 1888.
The fact being established by the
evidence that the acquisition OF the
property by the plaintiff was prior t.
1883, we are of opinion that the jury
: were properly instructed and tina
the evidence supports the verdict
The presiding Justice in this cas-
remarked in his charge to the jury
CA verdict for the plaintiff would b.
set aside as being contrary to thu
law" We are of the same opinion.
The exceptions are overruled.
, j. Nj. Davidson for plaintiff; CIV
Ashford for defendant.
, Honolulu, April 4th, 1891.