Hopkins v. Chung Wa
Hawaii Supreme Court
ON EXCEPTIONS. Where a husband and wife of pure Hawaiian blood were shown to have been iiving together for several years before and after the birth of a child by the wife, there being no' evidence offered to disprove the non-access of the husband ; Held,. Austin, J., dissenting, the child was legitimate, and capable of inheriting from the husband as his father; also, Held that evidence of the child’s admixture of blood is inadmissable to rebut the presumption of legitimacy.
Read the full summary
ON EXCEPTIONS. Where a husband and wife of pure Hawaiian blood were shown to have been iiving together for several years before and after the birth of a child by the wife, there being no' evidence offered to disprove the non-access of the husband ; Held,. Austin, J., dissenting, the child was legitimate, and capable of inheriting from the husband as his father; also, Held that evidence of the child’s admixture of blood is inadmissable to rebut the presumption of legitimacy. A lease was made for ten years from the 1st of April, 1858, at an annual-rent, payable monthly, with the covenant that…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
McCully, J.
*651I concur in tbe conclusions -readied by tbe Chief Justice, and substantially in tbe expression of bis views upon tbe two points to wbicb exception is taken. As bis decision lias been published, it will not be necessary to repeat tbe matter wbicb has been presented by him with ample learning. Tbise case must rest upon tbe rules of law declared in tbe Banbury peerage case, and most fully discussed in tbe House of Lords’ case of Morris vs. Davis. Tbe decision of the Chief Justice having been made a part of tbe bill of exceptions in this case, I take from it this…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Pioneer Mill Co. v. WardHawaii Supreme Court · 1938
- Godfrey v. RowlandHawaii Supreme Court · 1905
- In Re Estate of CunhaHawaii Supreme Court · 1966
- In re the Determination & Declaration of Heirs of Ho Chang SheeHawaii Supreme Court · 1964