The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-07-21

ss2pest tAe decd, The re&l eonslSsFSiiea was
sAss q lore sna ssecsias,. and was sufselen,ly
expressed ey the deed IN the wcsyis 'skeski 9
SSa SiAzsc.n A god er meEl,arsocs cor
scientifically which Is usually intended q
ooaSsaersiioa u love and affection he;weoa
parties related by Nloo1 or msrTsAge,-0r 8
vsle&o,e OF peeauisry eensiaesssior. however
snail ra$y support = decd. Nor Is tAere
anything - prevent enc. 50 far as he is HIM
Ss,T Affected, srom making aeea az Kin o;
lsnG TAe s;asass Of p Elz. said TO affirm
TIE eezGoa iaw, Only avoided voluntary
eoEvey$ncc< in Avor of subsequent eoaA
r&s purchasers for value Admitting thS,
the relations SAowa to exist between
Tx parties woal3 be sEfseieu, 10 fora =
geed consideration. ana that deeds here are
osea drawn ia AZ iszrtiSeiAl ua&srer, still !
CAR Ees regard this IS deed of gif, The
words ~ksiki kuH &ik&re, merely describe
the grantee. The deed expressly makes S
TIE fau eolssacrsitoa, ard makes no reivr-
szee 10 &ry other, II the complainant had
insss6eG to give away her land, I think she
voSia have said 50. ard that the deed would
hardly Saa 10 express ssch intention.
he witness, K&hzle, testified ,hSi the NJ
spo16<as gave kiEa IS to say that this was a
SCS5 q s&le, whereas he knew il VAS lease.
DO not, however. pl2ee much eon6ience in
this witness, Il Is not likely that he, alone,
of tho<S present al the execution Of the deed,
uozl2 have been hrieei. nor woald il seem
aeN,ssSry to briee hina- Probably none bat
the sfiornsy knew a lease from deed Of
sSle, o hearing il rad. nor could they know
how much Of the deed Was reAd- They
might net note the exact description Of the
premises. The witness Meie says: RT-
AsrS .ax csasSsns7se~ as IS gar, OF IS;
Sic Is not sare, IS she did no, attend rarsie-
ulariy"
To sgp2ort the allegation Of an agree
meat 10 lezse the k1la land, the witness Ka-
uzSs testified thzi he had heard the respond
eut say he would take s lease for 80 years at
IS annual rat, snd h2d heard complainant
say he might have il Kzilimai, KanSka,
and Akoai testify that the day Sfser the date
Of the deed. the respondent said he obtained
sseh lease, and Mr.. Beekvith testified that
the complainant made such statement to
him
Prsyioc< agreements TO lease are not in
eOn<isseUE with private sale, and both par
ties nay have private reasons to call this a
Iezss, contrary 10 the fact. KalA may have
SiSeei to avoid trozble with the relatives,
zzd Ainini nay have been induced 10 retrsct-
Bzf must lock At al the circumstances Of
this tr4us2eiioa- The eonpl4insn,'s entire
interest il this land wzs worth from 500 to
Sso Sic is evidently azed, ignOrznt and
dependent A lezs< Of tie kul4 land for 80
years, might nos, IS zrgaed. be an insufficient
consideration, 50 s. TO raise $ presumption
that szle might sS well have been intended.
he statement OF the witness. Neie, made
i1z5veEsenlly, seems 10 indicate that some
ssssris payment w2z mentioned The trade
seems 10 have bes1 kept secret fron Ainiai's
relatives, who voali naturally have been
Consulted, or At least been informed Of any
proceedings which were fair and above
board Bat the complainant placed conf
6eoce IN the Respondent, and considering
This t2ct, and her age and in6rmities, the
Cozrt vii se-siiziIe this alleged sale ziih
JEALOUS eye (Je1kins vs- Pys Il Peters, IS
ne burden Of proof IS on the respondent,
II ezSe Ike this, TO show that the bargain
ws< fair znd juzz, and that confidence vas
lot betrayed IHuzUenin vs- Bssely, Il Yes,
"a; CksStsT6sld vs. Jansen, YES, Iso.
E<Pecizl haste sppesrs in the deed being
ackno~ls5gst before the Register, at his pTi-
vz,s residence, Immediately after II was
executed There seems TO have been an in
ne5i1is dsuizl b. the cor pisinzni, that she
had sod her land Is sOou ss those acting in
hzr bsaxlf, CT thsir oEn, h.d learned that :
deed Of sale lad been recorded.
an Of the opinioa that this deed was
made uprOEidsatly-being undue adySa-
tsge taken Of position Of trust, 10 drive
AZ uaflr bargain with this aged woman, or
elss that tie deed Esz frzaduleatIy obtained
II eiihsr case, il i void
lad st Srs-, some doubt whether the
6esd saoul5 uot be reformed into lease,
bzt L part Of the i1daeenenl for the lease
Ezz thlt TIE respondent shosld support the
complainant, Il would be ; hardship to remit
her 10 his teodeT nercies- / regard the whole
trzns4etion IS A imposition on the com
pizin1st, and not zs csc Of mutual mis-
take, o. PaTis dsEkzi-
accordingly decree thxt the deed be de-
el1rs5 void, and that the respondent deliver
Up s1d re-eO8vey the premises to the eou-
PlziaEHt
Notice given Of exceptions, and appeal to
The f1l Court
J11s 80, Is69-