The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-12-11
The TRUST
WILL STAND
Three Decisions by
the Supreme
Court.
CARTER DEED
IS CONSTRUED
Justice Perry in Kaikainahaole
Case Talks About Con-
sested Calendar.

The Supreme Court rendered three
opinions yesterday. affirming the lower
court in the case of ]. Q. Carter VS..
Koolau Kaikainahaole, and Mary K.
Tibbetts vs. 5. Paili and reversing
Judge Humphreys in the case of ]. o.
Garter, Trustee VS.. Sybil A Carter, ct
al
The last case was upon the construe-
| ton of the deed of Helen S. judd and
| others of the premises known as Sweet
| Home TO ]. O. Carter in favor of Sybil
Carter. since deceased. and Others.
The trustee first asked whether he
should resign in favor of j. r. Gait as
requested. The Supreme Court in an
opinion by Chief Justice Frear says
that the mere request is not sufficient
and Mr. Carter need not resign. The
court adds: He may do so or not, as
he pleases."
The second question is whether
the trustee should comply with the re-
quest Of Sybi A. Carter with the con-
sent of her children, to convey the
premises to George r. Carter for SIS
00o The court says that the trust calls
for the compliance of the guardian and
the children being of age. this condition
cannot be fulfilled.
The third question as to whether the
trust Terminated when the youngest
child became of age is also answered
IN the negative The court says that
the trust did not terminate but is to
= %Lo
life tenant, Notwithstanding the arrival
of all the children at the prescribed
age meanwhile. No opinion is express
ed as to the fourth question, which was
to be answered in the event that the
trust had been terminated. The Su-
prene Court says -'The decree of the
Circuit Judge is in accordance with the
foregoing views on the first three ques-
tons but it goes further and sets forth |
instructions on other questions. AS TO |
such further instructions upon which |
we express no opinion. the decree is
reversed
THE KAIKAINAHAOLE CASE.
The Supreme Court affirn1s the decis-
ion in the case of ]. o. Carter VS. Koo-
lau Kaikainahaole, administra trix, |
holding that there is no jurisdiction to
issue a writ of possession in equity |
This is the case in which there has
been so much trouble recently in the
police court over the possession of the |
premises now occupied jointly by both /
parties. Reference is made in the de-
cision to the plea regarding the con-
geSted condition of the calendar, Jus
tice Perry in the decision stating; THE
delay due to the present condition of
the calendar in the first circuit-assum-
ing the facts to be as stated by the |
appellant-does not of itself render the
slow or inadequate within the !
meaning of the rule or principle in |
question. If the contention Of COM |
piainant We're permitted to prevail, the |
assumption or denial of jurisdiction by |
equity would become a matter of great |
uncertainty, based upon an ever vary /
ing state of circumstances. 1t is TO be |
observed, moreover, that no real or /
permanent improvement in conditions |
would follow from the adoption of the !
view if such were otherwise possible. |
that equity could take jurisdiction |
whenever a trial could thus be reached |
at an earlier date. The result would |
simply be to reverse conditions and to |
unduly cucumber the calendar of equity |
cases"
ANOTHER AFFIRMATION.
In the case of Mary K. Tfbbetts VS.
6. Pail, guardian of Olive Lahela, the /
lever court was also affirmed The Su-
prene Court held:
"A motion to set aside a default is |
addressed to the discretion of. the trial
judge and is not subject to review on |
exceptions il the absence of an abuse
Of discretion
The finding. of a jury on question
of fact viii not be set aside by this
court where there is evidence to sup
port il.
A.Rs a,.-~