The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-02-28
OPINION or THE COURT BY JUDD. c..

OPINION COURT BY JUDD CT
This appeal from order IL the CirCll judge
Fourth Circuit appointing W. G. T. Brown, gcDcrsIly
known Enoch Brown has petition guardian Of The
person OF female child bO about the fourth II Nav 1895
and found in cpoo Ililo Hawaii day 90 80 after IT,
birth The infant from the 81 81 discovery
has been and still in the possession care 81 sai Enoch
Brown Letters Of temporary Guardianship had l-sn issued Iy
the Circuit Judge to Brown the llih August aud
final hearing the 18th September appointment Of Broua
made permanent. One w Rosc brother Of the
mother 81 the infant. Mr. Pauline Runasn Tcsionrd
the judge that he H. appointed guardian II the I>cn Of
infant and at the hearing the mother requested that said
Otto w Rose be appointed The question before
Judge was whether the temporary appointment 81 BD
&c vacated and Rose appointed appointment l.. made
permanent The judge shown above ordered prsnancn,
letters Of guardianship &c issued Brown dccmng ncccs
that guardian should lc appointed Is-c APP
pealed to this Court
His counsel urge that the appointment Is VOID because the
statute followed Sec Of Civil Laws provides
that thc father Of the minor, IL living and death
the mother, while she unmarried being shcsolves
respectively eOmTcien; their business slua he
entitled the custody Of the person uninr and 10 the
Of his ciucaon; and IL urged that
dcnce and finding Of the enabled Il Is disregard
the priority Of the ether 81 the rig guar
danshP And it i further ccnictslc the parents Icing
-ou'c statutory right the appointment This cohcniioa
NAV - answered by the fact that neither arcni las applied
for the appointment and neither has had the actual custody of
the infant The record moreover. shows
hcas the mother failed obtain custody q the infant
and did appeal from 'c order di-iArging writ ui
think that there i discretion vested in judge dcrs,-
from the priority Of appointment Il the competency
the parents their business shown where The
Judge has good dcviaic. Civil
Laws distinctly that II the minor above the age of
thirteen dominates hi guardian succf The approval
OF the Judge We since there cvilcuc that tic
infant has any property hs, the here ,lc custody
of the infants property i n issc the r that the par
cnis have the first right ;he appointment II cuTii
transact their business would &c reasonable zni icsl u
has little cogcney in tis But there TriBcP'o q la
and good morals that the welfare IL ;lr child polar
by which the discretion of the &c guided Iur
lIab Cor GSs. and q" HSssarga, s. Sss aud
cited.
II would he subvcTive 81 good morals hold that the Judge
IN whom the appointment of guardians j. vested hss the
discretion to decide whether tho nominee person DO
intrusted with the OF infant q tender ysr N that
the judge legally take the custody infant from Sc
parents without the strongest showing unines
parents But this i Neither parent has had
it, custody In the trial Judge held hsi
advisable % appoint the petitioner Ro being Tic uncle q
the infant and living in the house With Il; mother, but 81
for the bCs; interests % the child that Is should not be-
where the influence 81 the would ~ cxcrso T. No
valid objection continuing the custody Of BUza and
hold that the judge had the da 10 eoninnc his guar
dianhiP and that il abused when be declined 90 s
point Rose in place Of Brown; and therefore n ihe appeal
Little d rs-agaer Brown, and H"~phrsys q
Gca;, Of counsel.
Tiidc, Wise d Wor,feId and c. p. rorso~s and Re'yf