The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-01-09

vsed to the defendant heong the defendant now h
entitled to the whole and the plaintiff nothing they took
for life only, then either the Hkaus be
whoever they were the remainder would go the grand
chdrens six children under clause of the will that wer
operative which latter the plaintiff would entitled TO
one-sxth.
does appear who Hkaus heirs were and SO in order h
succeed upon the facts the plaintiff establish M
that Ahiona and Naukana took for life only and o. clause
operative
Take the latter proposition first If the word frst clause
intended counsel both sides agree was if was
not inserted by mistake refer the death Kshnu so that
the clause would mean, " of my grandchildren shall
die before Kahinu they both perhaps then shall descend
or pass l to their children and on them the cond
ton happened, because neither grandchildren before
Kahn, the clause became operative If "frst was in
tended refer the death of the testaor the clause
would mean, eff either of my grandchildren shall die before
me the esator &c. the result would be the ame for neither
grandchd died before the third possible conru
ton would be to make the word first refer the death the
other grandchd that the clause would mean one of my
grandchildren shall die before the other they perhaps
&c. but this clearly of the question. The plaintiff sub
mits however, that the word W meaning rst was probably
inserted by mistake for co. which ephony and
perhaps emphasis in the corresponding place in clause the
two clauses beginning respectively, InG make Kdhinu and
Ina make kekahi" But substitute O' for e' before
kekah the assumption of would be take
unwarraned liberty especially COZ in that place would
bad Hawaiian
In of the conclusion that clause did become oper
ave it might be unnecessary to consider the other proposition
that the grandchildren took life only propo
stion upon which the plaintiff lays particular STRESS and
would have be considered if question reserved were
to be answered. and that question would be
material in the circuit court the plaintiff should claim
by of reverson through the heirs of Hkau will
slider it. Did, them the grandchildren take for life
only?
1t is agreed that if clause of the will stood alone the
deyee would take in fee simple although there words
of inheritance Hemen Kamakaa, 10 Haw. This vew
far the grandchildren concerned strengthened by the
clause of the words and their heirs forever after
grandchildren The word 'to before heir heirs
sufficient show that the heirs take by way of
mander Those words be regarded words of limitation
and not of purchase although the rule Sheey Case
in force here is mmaeral whether the words eff Kahnu
dies IF she dies before me- of she dies before the
grandchildren 81" she dies any e that is sWhen she
dies Upon her DEATH is whether clauses
and intended to give here life only fee
simple (defeasbe for in any she died both before
the testator and before the grandchildren the latter would take
the fee under clauses and The question then whether
this construction which would be put upon clauses
and they stood alone be changed by of clause
Counsel agree that clause taken whole shows that
hnu intended take for life only, and also that the ct
In the first line of that clause refers not to the whole property
the grandchildren share to Kanus share only
may be mentioned in passing that the verb sha descend
has subject expressed in the original in either clause
clause It merely supplied in the translation The plain
tiff then contends that clause makes distinction be-
the estates of the wife and grandchildren and clause
shows that the wife take for life only, and the word
chren clause word of purchase the grandchildren
also intended to take for life only and that clause
intended for the disposition of their share after their deaths
clause intended for the disposition of the wfes share
after her deaththe "it clause grand
chldren share just the T in clause refers the wfes
share The defendant contends the theory clauses
and the wife life only and the grandchildren the
fee that the W in clause refers does that
the wfe half and that these clauses both intended for the
disposition of her half alone after her death conn-
gencie that clause she should die grand
children and clause both of the grandchildren
should die before her Both these open some, but
the first to the greater objections Clause best uncertain
and therefore should not readily be allowed control clauses
and which taken alone clear give the children fee
simple. Further, to put plaintiffs clause
would require either disregard the words and their heirs