The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-07-09

which maintained not only the Ieg1S-
lature's power to abolish courts, but
the doctrine that when the legislature
changed rule of procedure all sub
sequent proceedings must conform to
the changed law. Mr. Dunno quoted
the law passed in 1908 which prescribes
that in matters of real estate belong
ing to a minor the jurisdiction lies in
the court of that circuit wherein the
minors donicile was situated or else
that in which the property in question
existed. AS to the former, there was
not a shadow of allegation in the petit
ton that the domicile of this minor
was in the First Circuit, which to that
extent made the petition fatally defec-
tive and deserving to be thrown out of
court. With regard to the other con-
dition. the fact was that the real estate
of the minor, referred to in the petit
ton. was in the Third Circuit. Under
these circumstances, the court had no
option left by the statute but to re-
fuse jurisdiction.
Mr. Magoon. on the next friend
question, contended that Mrs. Knight
had legally surrendered her natural
guardianship when consenting to judi
cial appointment of a guardian. Mr..
Low be claimed had the right to in
tervene as next friend if he considered
that the guardian was charging ex-
orbitant commissions and otherwise in
juring the wards estate.
Mr. Wilder wished to know what the
remarks being made had to do with the
immediate question before the court
Mr.. Magoon sought to justify the
line he had taken by the imputation
of improper motives to Mr.. Low which
opposite counsel had made. He went
on to argue that the First Circuit,
where the entire record of the guardi-
anship lay. was exclusively the place
wherein to bring these proceedings.
They were as much part of the rec
ord of the Annie T. K. Parker guardi-
anship as that courtroom was part
of the Judiciary building. 1t was there,
where he was appointed, that the
guardian had to give an account of his
trust. The proceedings were given the
form of petition in the matter of the
estate of Annie T. K. Parker for that
very reason, as he was fully aware that
an alternative method was available in
the form of bill in equity for a sale
of real estate of the minor.
While the entire record of the estate
in guardianship was in the First Cir
cult, why should the parties be COM
PEELED to go over into the wilds of
Hawaii?" Further, he claimed that the
statute as relating to domicile did
bring the matter within that courts
jurisdiction. Even if the mother did
take the ward to San Francisco, the
childs domicile was where she was
born. 1t was the law that where a
mother remarked, her change of donli-
Gle did not affect the status of her
minor child.
Mr.. Wilder observed that in this case
the child was taken to San Francisco
before the mother remarked.
Mr.. Dunno objected that residence
and domicile were not interchangeable
terms.
Mr.. Magoon replied that this was
merely a conclusion of law on the part
of opposite counsel. He would not say.
regarding the argument that the moth
er was satisfied with the legal guardi-
ans conduct, that she did not love her
child, but he submitted that she did
not understand the situation well
enough to judge of her child's interests
in the matter. AS to domicile, again,
he argued that the interests of the
minor, as reposing in the guardian,
were practically in Honolulu where the
guardian resided and where he had to
render his accounts in the probate
court of the First Circuit. Besides the
minor did possess property in this
jurisdiction.
Counsel on the other side took him
up on this point, saying that the argu-
ment was based on nothing contained
in the petition. When Mr.. Magoon was
talking about the situation of the prop |
erty, Mr.. Wilder remarked that the
real estate mentioned in the petition
was entirely within the Third Judicial
Circuit. Mr.. Dunno Clipped in:
Perhaps it has been brought down !
by the steamer Kinau''
Mrs. Knight, who was in court with |
her husband throughout the day, was |
often amused at the wranglings, par |
t1cularly when her own relations to |
the case Were being discussed.
COURT NOTES.
In the two appeals on writ of error |
brought by Young Hin and 81 others |
against H. Hackfeld & Co.. Ltd, and |
Honokaa Sugar Co.. Ltd, F. E. Thomp |
son and c. F. Clemens file appearance |
for the former defendant and the same
attorneys with Cecil Brown for the lat
ter defendant
Isaac Noar by his attorney, c. w.
ashford, has discontinued his suit in
equity against Lee Chu and C. K. Al.
Tor injunction, accounting, etc., with
reference to the Star block.
The Supreme Court will resume its
session on Monday morning.