The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-03-13

A q mere conduit through which the
legal and the equitable title shozld
Ecx to the Honolulu Plantation Com
pany- But it can matter not ho1
clear. certain. positive and convinc-
ing testimony may be in particular
case. II the court Is without juriS
tfcticn TO hear and determine the res
lite. II would not make the slightest
difference that the testimony Eere
ovsgw helming. or even that the ale
cations Of the declaration were con
fsssed in an ass1mpsit suit Instituted
in chanceFy. the court would vet BE
without jurisdiction TO hear and de
ter1ine and any Judgment which il
might assume 70 render would be
void This case is hardly parable.
with the illustration given. yet some
of the underlying principles are the
same and all that can be expected IN
any case is that the principle be de-
veiopsd
While satisfied beyond question
that the petitioner. guardian. in this
matter has acted in the utmost good
faith. inspired by the very commend
able desire TO save its wards the cost
and expense OF defending suit which,
in its Judgment. they cannot defeat.
get think that any practice which
tends 10 encourage the divesting Of
the apparent legal title to real estate
out OF infants and of vesting the same
in another or others. upon purely
ex-parte and in-camera proceeding is
not to be tolerated Such practice is,
| believe. without precedent in chan
Gerry; and | am unwilling to pioneer
In blazing trees or making a bride
path which may, at some time in the
future, enable unscrupuious or i'm
prudent guardians TO easily reach
highway in which through COLLISION
or lack of discretion. duty. or want OF
judgment the real estate of their
wards may be vested in others with
out consideration and without con-
test No decree pro coufesso can be
rendered against an infant. nor can
an infant be pound by any admission
which he may make in chancery.
This is proposition which | have
never heard denied or questioned.
and it would seem to be equally true
that an infant cannot be bound by the
allegations contained in his complaint
or petition and particularly should
this rule prevail where the necessary
effect of such allegations is to divest
him of title to property.
Every proceeding to divest an in
FAINT of property to which he has the
apparent legal title should be treated
as hostile proceeding
Jurls-and no intendments or pre-
sumption should be INDUCED by the
court against the infants rights.
There is nothing which is better
calculated to develop the real facts
in case than contest in a court of
justice conducted in an aggressive
manner with both parties constantly
on their mettle, and such a contest is
to be encouraged and invited where
the property interests of a minor are
at stake While this proceeding would
divest the Kahookano minors of an
apparent title to real estate, yet they
are not even parties thereto. either as
plaintiffs or defendants.
The petition is that of the guardian
alone. See Meek VS.. Houghtailing, Z
Haw. $50
am satisfied that am without
Observation-Disclosures grant the
prayer of this potion. and accord.
ingly order that it be dismissed, and
direct that the guardian defend the
suit in equity instituted by the Homo
lulu Plantation Company against it's
wards.
Honolulu, March II, 1901.
HUMPHREYS.
First Judge.
Atkinson & Judd for petitioner