The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-09-11


based on such void order is itself void aso nS the s
sentence, if of Imprisonment may be ohto" anu fehe
Disobedenee OF such order is not oot vi no1as Com
In such event. stands though no order hi LOT The n
Church on Hd6eds Corpus, 2nd Ed A. 1Fa made N
Encycl. Law End Ed, 17s; Er partc F,l, 0 Is At
Br parte Rowland 1O4 .. S 6o4 tI,. 10 L. SnI
q. S. POI, 221, 1922; Er pare Broru a. ~, ' NqTyr
E9 parte Grace, II la. POS, 215 1t i cn.n a o. %s
court OF which relief is asked may on hqboy o s la
into the jurisdiction of the by which tb paS nq
contempt was made, IN respect either to the p(
the person. even II such inquiry involves an cxamm.
outside of, but not inconsistent with the reoor 9th
Mayteld, al U. S. 1O7, 49, In re Cuddu ~, re d
R. r. =. Wen, 1876 No. 230. 265: and 4 ~ "
End Ed, 203. '3Gl Ia
Was the order to reconvey voidl The theory NM,
is sought to be supported is that the land DESCRIBED sl
was an chsfodia tegis at the time of the %
was contempt, punishable summarily to accent u;a I
of court and with knowledge of the guardianship a9
from the ward while still under guardianship and H.
were, to take the property of the custody Of the
contention cannot be upheld Whether or not It i
for to accept deed Of land from a minor Will M
guardianship need not say In the case at bar tho |
ship had by operation of law terminated prior (so
to the date of the deed Section 1875 of the Civil
ton of the chapter Guardians and Wards" proil x
marriage of any female who is under guardianship as
shall operate legal discharge to her guardian mi
guardian Of any insane person. spendthrift NAV n
charged by any Judge of Probate, when it shall ap,
the application of the ward otherwise that such rs
ship is longer necessary" The language of the first M
is too clear admit of doubt; applies in the case
Puhipaka was under guardianship as minor Her msru
in March, 1900, operated by force of the statute as
discharge her guardian, and thereafter the court p
retained jurisdiction over hm merely for the purpose
polling an account and of settling his administration as gu
See OUertOn o. Bearers, 10 Ala 625, cited with apu
People a. Seelye, 146 Ill. PIP. The wards real estate ft
before her marriage certainly was thereafter IN s
legis.
The views here expressed concerning the first pOya
Section 1875 of the Civil Laws not inconsistent
with the decision in the matter of The Guardianship XII
Kapukini, - Haw. o. The ward in that case mA(
guardianship as spendthrt and not minor and The
clusion there announced that her marriage did en
the guardianship of her estate clearly based upon that
distinction The Court said "Ths section (lSl5 comma
its declaration that the marriage of the ward shall operate
legal discharge to her guardian to where the ward
guardianship as minor" Gtalcs in Originally and then ts
giving its reasons for this conclusion cat the same time
marriage of female ward, even though the reason az
guardianship was that she spendhrift, OF necessity wl
inmates the guardianship far her person cona
even in the absence of specific statutory provision
effect As appears above the guardian OF spndtanh
the same section may be discharged by any Judge
when it shall appear to him that said guardianship no
necessary The Court simply held that there was non
the marriage relation or in the law in this ursdaloh s
ing the property of married which would OF a0
as in the case of her person. terminate the guardianship
estate. y.
At the hearing of Kamios petition and accounts 'ne V
was conflicting as to whether not Puhpaka had lea0
age of legal majority prior to the date OF the den
last mentioned question: and the further queSuoh
whether if the deed was executed during the mn"|
orantor it was valid, void vodable and (b) wnen
son of fraud or other attendant circumstances the oe
valid Pahia was entitled to be heard and to nave III w.
court He was not heard and when he asked Tor an opp
to present his defense the request was refused he
party to the proceedings then before the court t
appropriate pleadings summons other process Hu:a
give the court Jurisdiction over his person Inc lne
in the subpoena of the above reeited order to snow
he should not be adiudged guilty of contempt III
the property was insufficient for that purpose Inv
and sentence moreover were for the alleged CON- d
purchasing the property but for disobeyng the 0u Al
yev. Nor can Pahia be held to have waived any .nl
or to have submitted to the Jursdc0u
into court producing the deed, and undesohs a.
on the stand He did so simply witness III ms , MOI
subpoena and he could not safely have re1tu and bed
over his statement to the court, made at Dn' sp
inabove quoted, clearly shows an intention not !"
his rights in the matter. of tbe subp
Further the court did not have urlsdlctoH tb deed
matter The issue the alleged lnValluy ,d he grand
one to be contested by and between the gra n the g
in proper proceedings in court of equity anu I'LL e. land
ianship proceeding in the court OF probate red
involved and that question could not DC ''''
...omp Of court \
That proceedings to punish party for contempt issue Of
IL rroi