Talk:Junius Kaʻae

Image may be inaccurate
The obituary sketch may or may not have been Rev. Enoka Semaia Timoteo (1847–1917)





Expansion

 * From Kalākaua. Content should be added to this article minus any repetitions.KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A famous case from the period involved Levi Haʻalelea regarding the authenticity of a will of Kealiiahonui. Haʻalelea had submitted a hand written will of Kealiiahonui on behalf of the estate of Kekauʻōnohi, with whom Haʻalelea was now widower of. In 1866 Kamehaokalani (a minor, by Next friend) along with Kapiolani, with her husband David Kalakaua, Poomaikelani and her husband Hiram Kahanawai, Victoria Kinoiki Kekaulike and her husband David Kahalepouli Piikoi, Kaluaipihana and her husband F.W. Malaihi, (with Maliahi representing Kamehaokalani as next friend), petitioned the probate court to revoke the decree that admitted the will on the grounds that the will was a forgery and fraud. That case was dismissed on November 30, 1866. −		 −	In 1890 Junius Kaʻae petitioned the court on behalf of Kamehaokalani's estate to revoke the probate of the will of Kealiiahonui again accusing forgery and asking to admit newly discovered evidence. The respondent, Andria A. Haalelea (Amoe Ululani Kapukalakala Ena) filed a plea in bar that both the 1866 case and this new case were exactly the same. Justice Bickerton wrote; "After careful examination of this case, and of the authorities, I consider that the petitioner is estopped from what would amount to a re-hearing of the original petition in the case before Mr. Justice Robertson. Both that petition and the one in this case allege the same grounds why the probate should be revoked, viz: That the will is a forgery." Upon appeal the full court agreed. −		 −	In 1893 a third petition was filed to again attempt to revoke the 38 year old Haʻalelea probate case, this time to Justice Sanford B. Dole. Junius Kaae was again the petitioner. Levi Haʻalelea's widow, pleaded based on the judgment from 1890. The plea in Bar, this time, was overruled by Dole. When the decision was adjudicated, both litigants were required to sign an agreement allowing Justice Dole to continue to adjudicate even though he was no longer seated on the high court. The court wrote; "Now, therefore, it is hereby agreed that the said Honorable S. B. Dole may participate in, make, sign, file and enter a decision and judgment in this cause, upon said appeal, in like manner as though he were still in commission as a Justice of said Court." The case is filed as the first case of the provisional government on February 23, 1893