The Hawaiian gazette., 1878-02-13
Supreme COurt Of the Hawaiian
Islands.
In the matter Of J. A. NAHAKU, Esq, an
Attorney at Lao
Before Harris c. j., aud Judd and McCuly j. j.
Opinion of the Court by Judd J,

Before Harris G. j., aud Judd and McCully j. j.
Opinion of the Court by Judd J.
There can be no doubt that the deed from
Nalu to Nalu opiO, with reference to the execu-
tion of which gross misconduct is charged upon
the respondent is fraudulent. The water mark
showing the date of the manufacture of the
paper upon which the deed written to have
been 1866 it ia impossible that the deed should
have been signed 10 1863. All the evidence
shows that both Naln and Kaoelo bis wife had
died during the early part of the reign OF h. ",
without executing any deed, and that many
years after, probably in 1869 their signatures
we're placed on the deed in question and wit
messed by Kaanaana and Kaueloa, who afiix their
cross marks.
Kaueloa says that Nahaku wrote the names
of Nalu and Kaolelo. but that Nalu opio pro-
cured his assent to become witness. though he
knew that they were both dead. He says he
did not go before Judge Lawrence and prove the
execution of the deed
Kaanaana says that Nahaku procured his as
sent to become a witness, that he does not
know who wrote the deed, that he did not go
before Judge Lawrence.
Nalu opio says that Nahaku wrote the deed
and that Kaanaana and Kaueloa both went be-
fore Judge Lawrence and gave their testimony
proving the deed; that Nahaku put him up to hav-
|
| 10 and Kaoelo were dead. Nahaku denies posi-
lively making the deed or writing any of the
signatures, but admits that he assisted in pro-
curing the proof of the deed before Judge Law
renee believing it to have been executed by its
| grantOrs in their life time.
The testimony of many witnesses as well as the
| inspection of the handwriting of Mr.. Nahaku
makes it very clear that he did not write the
deed and very doubtful if he wrote the signatures
1t is evident that the names of the grantors and
of the subscribing witnesses were written by one
and the same person and with the same or slmi'
lar ink to that used by Judge Lawrence in writ
ing the testimony of the witness in proof of the
execution.
Nalu opio, as testified to by Manuel Sylvia, has
made statement varying from his testim ony
given in Court, to wit that one Naluahi wrote
the deed.
1t is quite certain from all the facts presented
that either Nahaku or NaIu oplo is guilty of this
fraud The Court are of the opinion that in
normatiOns of this character, charging erin
nal otfense against an attorney, the benefit OF a
reasonable doubt should be held in favor of the
respondent, and as the subscribing witnesses
anu Naln oplo are by their own admissions
guilty of fraud, and contradict each other il
material matters, the Court has received the i'm
preston from their testimony hat they are en-
deavoring to shield themselves by throwing the
guilt of the instigation of this offense upon the
respondent. Such testimony is not trustworthy
aud the Court does not feel justified in believing
it, when its effect would be To ruin the reputa
tion and standing of practitioner at this bar
We do not find the charges substantiatet
and dismiss the information without costs.
January 81. 1878.