The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1907-02-12
CONSTRUED A
LEPERS WILL
SUPREME COURT RENDERED a
QUICK DECISION IN THE NAT
TER OF A PROBATE APPEAL

A case where the estate of a leper
was at issue was settled by the SUI
preme Court this morning. The matter
came up yesterday on an appeal by
a niece, as appellant, to have the VIII
construed. The case was in the estate
of Hikaalani Noholoa, deceased, and
the appeal was from the decision of the
judge of the Second Circuit. The opin
ion is by Justice Hartwel, and is as
follows:
The decedent died at the leper set
Element leaving personal property
there valued at 5000 and land IN Ho-
nolulu, assessed for taxes at $780,
| leased at $340 a year with renal in
the hands of j. A. Magoon said to
amount to $500. Upon the petition Of
the husband and sole devisee the will
was admitted to probate and letters Of
administration were granted to Enoch
johnson, the judge denying the petition
of the appellant, niece and heir at
law Of the decedent for administration
on the estate in Honolulu which, as she
claims, is not disposed of by the will.
The will, written in the Hawaiian
| language, is translated as follows:
Il, the undersigned a leper residing
| at Kalaupapa, Island of Molokai, Ter
ritory of Hawaii, do make this my last
will for all property known belonging
to me and appearing in my name, sit
uate at Kalaupapa aforesaid, with good
viii Cor intention) to hereby bequeath
the same as hereinafter described: one
gray horse, one bay mare, one black
mare, one frame wooden house and
other houses owned by me- as well as
all other property owned by me. to my
husband David Noholoa, residing at
Kalaupapa aforesaid, to him and to
his heirs, administrators and executors
forever; renouncing all claims that my
relatives may set up in law to this"
The appellant claims that only the
Kalaupapa property is disposed of by
the will, that the gift is restricted by
the words "the same as hereinafter de-
scribed" to the horses and houses men
toned and that the expression "as well
as all other property owned by me" is
merely a general phrase to include
what may have been omitted in the
specific description under the intro
ductory words expressing an intention
to dispose of the specified property on
, ly. She correctly says that the add.
ton of the words situate at Kalau-
papa" after the words "as well as ali
other property owned by me- would
simplify an Interpretation of the Will"
They would add materially and, we
4
intention for We see no ground for
finding in it an intention to dispose of
no property except that which is spe-
officially named. The original of the
will shows more clearly than does the
evidently defective translation that the
intention was to dispuose of also all
the other property known to be mine.
The decedent evidently knew well what
her property at Kalaupapa was and
there is no reason to suppose that she
did not know of the property in fIo-
nolulu To hold that because certain
personal property is enumerated
no other would pass under the express
sion "all other property would be an
application of the ejusdem generis rule,
not to effectuate but to defeat the ex-
pressed intention. Judges of the pres
ent day." it is said, prefer the rule
(which gives to words of a compreheUc
sive import their full extent Of opera
ton, unless some very distinct ground
can be collected from the text for con-
sidering them as used in a special and
restricted sense. I Jarmen on Wills, 6
Ed, 1885,
Decree appealed from affirmed.
E. c. Peters for appellant; Holmes
3 Stanley and c. H. Olson for appellee.