The Hawaiian gazette., 1875-09-08

TO the plaintiffs, il they had chosen to call him
did not offer himself to disprove an averment, th
truth Of which no one had attempted to substan
tiate. He. as well as the defendants counsel, ha,
o right to suppose that the averment was no
eventually relied upon Therefore lawrence re
mains as regards tie transaction, the agent Of th,
plaintiffs alone
Now it might well be that Mr.. Lawrence HEX
out alluring inducements to the plaintiffs to EN-
ploy him, representing TO them the benefits tha
would result to them from his efforts and after h
had gotten the money for the land, he may haveap
propristed it to his own use and the defendant
would not be accountable in the slightest degres
for any Of his acts. He came to the defendant o.
to those in whose place she now stands, with 6
power Of attorney In due form, containing q spe
ci6c authority to sell these very lands This in
strument was witnessed by two Hawaiians, con
yersaut with both languages, aud duly acknowl
edged before the Registrar OF Conyeyanees
Surely there was no occasion on the face of it for
thRpurchaser to go any further We shall ed
vert to this again.
II is sand by counsel for plaintiffs that the
evidence is conclusion of fraud on the part oil
lawrence" II it we're 80, it would not be even
indicative of any fraud or act of omission amount.
ing to fraud on the part Of the purchasers and it
is on this ground alone that the Plaintiffs can sue
coed. 1t is asked, lis it not uncomfortable to one
familiar with the Hawaiion character that these
people should authorize newly arrived foreigner
to sell out all they had for fourth Of its market
value, or still more to sell at his own discretion
as to pricei" Certainly it is incOnceivable that
they should authorize a sale at q fourth Of the
market value, but it is by no means incoRceiva.
bic that they should employ con6dentially newly
arrived foreigner aud even TO the extent which
this instrument indicates Indeed, il is notorious
that whether as lawyer, physician or clergyman,
or iu any relation, it makes no difference that any
one has served aud guarded them faithfully for
years, let a stranger put in an appearance and he
stands as good aud perhaps better chance Of en-
ployment and confidence.
With regard to the inadequacy Of the price, it
is to be taken into consideration that they had
been warning for seven years, had been nonsuited
three times, and had discontinued once, had en-
ployed again counsel Mr., Jones, himself by the
way recently arrived,) given him fee Of $50, and
received from him after time, the assurance that
he could go no further unless they gave him a
share of the land, and we're obliged to look out
for new counsel to whom they paid $50; it would
not appear anything very strange that they should
offer to sell out or compromise for $1,000, nor
very strange il their opponents under all the cir
cumstances should think that they were doing a
reasonable if not generous act in aecedipg to
such compromise and it is certainly very doubt
ful whether anybody could have been found in the
market to offer so large sum for a tigated es-
tate, nor must it be forgotten that the 1920 is
not quarter of the value Of their estate even on
the estimate but one quarter Of the value of the
whole estate to large portion of which the pur-
chasers had an unquestionable title and the whole
of which was in their possession and had been so
for long time. .
Much stress has been laid upon the fact that
Halai who was native Hawaiian wrote the in
strument in English. But he was mere copper
or clerk, and copyed the paper propably as it was
given to him. There is no evidence given OF the
amount Of education of these plaintiffs, but judg
ing from their signatures affixed to the document
it wonld make but little difference to them
whether it was written in English or Hawaiian,
since in either case some one else must read and
interpret it to them. Again, it is said that it
required no power of attorney between the par
ties to sell, when they were so near to each other;
surely it needed no power of attorney to carry on
the suit, and needed none to negotiate aud there
fore the purchasers might reasonably suppose that
It was given for something and if for anything
for what purpose other than which it purposed to
BET
But it is said, that the power of attorney con-
tains q clause whereby the plaintiffs promise
and agree to ratify :" the acts of their attorney
but no application for such ratification appears
% have been made to them by the purchasers"
It would scarcely appear necessary to comment
IN that point. II they have "promised and
greed to ratfy" it is for the Court to hold them
o their promise and agreement The words are
10 different in effect than if they had used the
words thereby ratityipg and confirming"
But it is said the power Of attorney to sell was
lot knowingly executed, and is void, and gave
lawrence no power to sell. And counsel in
heir brief go on to say cit was not q voidabls
contract obtained by fraud or Misrepresentation,
mt contract at ALL and gives no basis of title
more than forged deed" If this last position
70 true then plaintiffs have no status in this |
Court for it does not require proceeding of this
ature to set aside forged deed and the whole
4 this proceeding is grounded on the assumption
hat the power OF attorney was obtained by fraud
nd Misrepresentation. But II it be granted that
Plaintiffs did not know what they we're Signing
would be an exceedingly strange and danger
us idea that one could sign an instrument by
Thich another ia enabled to obtain large sum
t money from third party, and then, seven
ears after the act, be enabled to avoid the effects
{ bis act after the money has been misappro-
rated by their own agent and without even the
retence Of an offer to restore the money and put
be purchasers in the position they were in be-
pre- the act. Such a holding would be to treat
awrence as the agent Of the purchasers and not
5 the agent for these plaintiffs
Nor is it clear that they did not know that the
lstrumant was an authority IN eell their lands