The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-07-28
EJECTMENT CASE
Decided by Judge Stanley
Yesterday
). C. Aliens Title TO King Street
Property Confirmed by a Circuit
Court Decision.

Judge Stanley has decided TN. eject
ment suit. jury waived. OF James
Hoare ". ;. c. Allen in favor of the
defendant
The plaintifr, James Hoare. "a this
action seeks TO recover from Jhe de-
PENDANT possession of two parcels OF
land situated on King street. Homo
lulu. which he claims TO be entitled i'm
fee simple and which he asserts have
been wrongfully taken into possession
by the defendant. on April 18th. 1893
the defendant filed an answer denying
generally the allegations of the com
plant.
Trial by jury was waived by stipula-
ton and on June 9TH. 1899. the ease
proceeded TO trial.
According to plan end survey OF
the premises made by VI. ID. Monsarrat.
a surveyor, the premises are divided
into four lots, numbered =. >. / and ..
From the facts admitted at the hear
ing. it appears that one James Hoarc
in his lifetime owned the lots =. 3
and /. and on his death the same
passed TO his son. the pIaintin. at that
time minor. on March 10. 1850. An
tone Rosa was appointed guardian of
| the person and property of the plain
| tiff. and on petition To MCCully. J.. one
/ of the Justices of the Supreme Court
| filed July 10. 1881. he was authorized
| to mortgage the real estate OF the
ward for the purpose of purchasing
! lot No. and for general Improvements
of the buildings upon the estate.
| In accordance with this authority
lot No. was purchased by the guar
dian and mortgage, with power nj
sale, was executed upon July 25th. 1881
10 one Mary J. Brown covering lots
,, 3. t and ,. This mortgage was la
ter assigned to the defendant. :. G. Al
len, who subsequently for non-payment
of principal and interest had the mort
gagged premises sold at public auction
when he became the purchaser and has
ever since held possession.
1t is claimed by the plaintiff ID that
the guardian had no authority TO mort
gage lot No. }: CD that the Court. Nc
Gully, j., had no jurisdiction to EN-
power the guardian to mortgage the
real estate of his ward for any purpose
to authorize a motgage. the guardian
had no authority to insert in the mort
gage a provision for the sale of the
mOrtgaged premises.
In regard to the first point. Judg,
Stanley is of opinion that the ordel
lsigned by Justice McCully did author
ize Mr.. Rosa TO mortgage lot No. >. "a
we'll as lots >, and /. As TO tn,
jurisdiction of Justice McCuIIy tn,
Court held that he had such jurisdic
ton under the Civil Code of 1853
tees of the Supreme Court shall hav,
power at chambers to- appoint guar
dams and to compel them To perform
their trusts. The Justices were veStc,
with full chancery powers. and tn
jurisdiction of the Chancery courts eX
tended to the general superintendent
of the persons and property of minors
The Chancery courts of England exeT
ciSed this jurisdiction. and. when occa
sion demanded, allowed guardians [
mortgage the real estate OF wards. \
to the third point that the guardia
was not authorized To insert in In
!. mortgage a provision comforting IN
power of sale, Judge Stanley holds tina
, the guardian was authorized TO do :,
B and, further. that for the purposes {
, this case the mortgage having bee
held valid. the insertion of this prov
: sion would not invalidate it,
In accordance with the above opiI
ions, Judgment is given for the d,
PENDANT.