The Hawaiian gazette., 1884-12-10
Supreme Csz-s Of tbs Hawaiian IslAaas--
In Bazro. OcesAsr Tern. 1854.
PvrnEAsA " vs. Lio (kl rr aus,

yrsi e, = Kec,ay a.d 1ssta, : ! eyiHsls Of
ne cs~rt 5y AecAstg :
The complainant brings her bill IN equity &c
set aside a ccrveyance executed By her in 1879
. T1kaluhi and her husband Lie. alleging
that she intended The conveyance to be to Ma
Sal nh and kapgle- Nakaluhi has since de-
CEASED and the estate has fallen to Lilo BY right
et urvivcrship.
The sole question IN the case IS gRe Of fact.
L Is the testimony ca botA parts that Pu1he-
ana, with LfQ and some others, o. day IN
September, 1879, went - the residence Of cue
s W. Mlheioni, Hawaiian uisu,ber Of the
bar, for the purpose Of having 4 conveyance
drawn and e1scutsd
The testimony CT the complainant and Of
lwv witnesses On her behalf Is that Puuheaua
directed M1helona % make the deed in favor
Of Alxlluhi and kap1le-thak the ecnsiiera-
;io1 was C be cne dollAr, and pruyisicc foe
the support and maintenance q the gransur for
Hfs-ani that when the deed was written Ma
helena read L - conforming to these ius,rue-
sic1s, and the complainant. who cannot read,
executed it. The deed N f1cs was To Lilo and
ALzllUhi, for i consideration Of $40 and
vi-hca. covenAnt FOX maintenance.
We % not think Ii necessary % present an
abstract Report Cf the testimony, IN view q
what il set forth IN the published opinion Of
the Chist Justice We wuuld point GOT eas
circumstances which s significant, gpon which
10 comment has bssr made. All the witnesses
fer the plaintiff testify that il was after Maize
Iona had made beginning Of writing the in
strumenE Lilo whispered or spoke in A low
voice u him. It IS strongly urged in argu-
usnt FER the plaintiff, that By that whispering
Aahsl0ua vas induced to make the deed in
fLTur ct Lilo, and not a. instructed by Puube-
ana b. Inspection Of the instrument We see
that the name Of Lilo is grantee cures IL the
third line It Is added 70 all the improbable
Ihss CT tins case that although be had begun
and proceeded with the writing be was 50
soon arrested and the instrument changed a.
u the grantee, and that upon the brief whis-
pering, the whole tsncr Of It changed, Is to
consideration and covenant Of support. Ma
helena and Lilo testify that the low voiced
Eurts between them were only the statement
Of Lilo that he hlj not brought money enough
To pay fer the land and the expenses Of draw
ING ami acknowledging the deed. Il Is IN the
highest degree unlikely that the attorney 10
whom al parties had addressed themselves
eCuld 50 easily and n 80 brief tine have been
induced to enter fraudulent conspiracy. No
evidence Is given that drawing the deed II the
form II which is stands was Of any advantage
/ to him
We have given full consideration TO all the
testimony Of record and We are strongly in
pressed with It's f1ilurs ID support the plain
tins claim L IS clearly proved, IN our view,
[ that there vas no fraud IN the drawing and
execution Of the deed
We tIzCredIt the testimony CT the three wit
aesses who lastly that different Instructions
were given 70 MaheIe1a and that be read to
them 1 dI6srsut instrument from that which
was written PGuheaal, By her cnutuct and
bF many declarations 70 different parties,
proves that she knew and intended the cue.
vsylncs to be made 10 Lilo Tor one grantee
L Il not a rare case for an elderly Hawaiian,
| iguorzus Of reading and writing, 10 aIlese thai
/ be has been imposed upou BY tie fr7uduIent
reading Of an instrame1t which be thereapou
eI=cutss- Thers have been cases where such
allegation u sustained But the Court viii be
elcsedi1giy cautious about setting aside con-
7sFl1ces upon the ground Of an ignorant mis-
understanding Tie pr1ofz must be qaimpeach-
| abl4-she circumstances Of the case must show
Pr1bshle frzHd, imposition, and unreasonable
charactsr-the parties claiming To have SUI
/ fsred BY their ig1or11ce must not have slept
GPoc their rights zfesr discovering the alleged
frzzd-
T1 hold otherwise would ofsr privilege
Iuf Prsni1m 70 iguor7nes and greatly dis
/ tz-b I'll titles from zgsd Hawaiian gr1ntors-
1 The case bef0rs Is lacks all the features Of
i case entitled 10 relief
We therefore affirm the Judgment Of the
/ Court II Ch1mberz
n Thompson and John Russell far plaintiff;
/ A. :. Hartwell fer defendants
| H1aolala, nov 18th, 1851