Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1916-08-16


error vas emphasized by the fact that
the circuit Judge while expressly de,
eIilIng 10 make g finding as TO the
queens present status or condition,
permitted the guardian ad litem, who
could ave a standing in court only in
case the queen be in fact incompetent,
10 file an answer and cross bill aver
ring her incapacity, the legal effort Of
which was to suFplant her former as.
sertion of compet ency. ."#
Regarding the right Of Knhio TO
maintain the suit, the decision says:
I'VE think it is clear, therefore, that
Kalanianacle, as sole complainant,
may not maintain the suit since ne
has no interest in the subject matter.
Having gone this far, We are COMPEL
ed to go further. We believe thot
some OF the mistakes which have been
made in this case have resulted from
an error made by this court. In dis
charging the temporary writ OF pro-
hikition which the queen had sued
out we held-and properly so-that
the bill Of complaint did not aver in
sanity on Cne part of the queen, but
mental weakness and undue int'u-
ence which presupposes mental COM
potency.
But we erred in holding that the
queen was therefore entitled to dis
continue the suit as she had done.
The writ was pOperly discharged
since the circuit judge was not pro-
ceeding without jurisdiction, but our
reasoning did not reach the root of
the matter.
The charge was not OF mental CON-
potency, but OF weakened mind
which had been. and Is being, subject
ed to the. domination of the said res
pcndents. It was not enough to say
that the presumption of sanity or
mental competency prevailed in favor
of the queen, for If, at the time this
suit was instituted, she, though sane,
was still subject to the same domin.
alton under which. it is ayerred, she
executed the deed of trust, and was
not free agent, the suit could be
brought and maintained In her name
and behalf by next friend appointed
by the court.
Although the Assertion of Menta!
Competency filed by the queen seem
ed to assume that mental incolnpe
tencv was averred in the bill, as courl
sci ar Kalanianaole has contepded IL
was, that paper and the Objection
and Protest filed by her sufficiently
challenged the ayerments OF existing
undue Influence and control on the
part of Iaukea and Dominis, and lack
OF free agency on the part of the
queen, so as to raise an immediate is.
sue in regard TO the queens condi-
tieA and status at the tine uftthe Ssi7
ing of the bill.
And in this connection we may
state that Kalan!anaole was not an
improper person to act as next friend
OF the queen on the ground of having
supposed adverse Interest 81
The appointment of Mr.. Andrews
as guardian I'd litem was not author.
lied as the facts upon which the au.
thorify Of the court to make such an
appointment depended we're In contro
versy and remained undetermined.
The answer and cross libel filed by
the guardian ad Item should have
been stricken from the record"
In conclusion the decision says:
THE circuit judge may entertain
an application by some one asking
leave to act as next friend Of the
queen for the purpose OF having her
reinstated as the complainant In the
case Sunder the original bill and, in
that event, the question as to her
present status and right to control
the suit, or whether a. next friend
should be appointed for her, should
be heard preliminarily.