The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1885-01-21
Aalraiiall 0azettE.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY ii Isss
suPrv.as cs1rt e tAs HaVSiIaa IslaaaD--
In Equity
RrsKccA HcvLASp vs.. Karrxt SAcSE
AND HER HUSBAND ALAKENI
NRoSE. Et

Ssfors J-sics 4uSti-- opisig,.
This is an action in Equity to set aside " G
deeds by which certain real estate worth aboS'
SSee0, situated in Honolulu, was vested in tie
defendant, Kapika Naone.
The plaintiff claims 10 he entitled to the
property a. soleElevisce Of KalaAu fdeRRed,
u will bearing date October Is, ISL Md
duly proved March IS, lSs4
The deeds bear date respectively November
Il, lsS2 and were duly acknowledged oDthai
dsy, and duly recorded On the 2sd dzy Of No
vember, ISS2. One Of the deeds was from Ka-
Iaau deceased, 10 The defendant Alakema Ma
one and the other deed was from him n The
defendant Kapiks, the wife Of deceased, nd
10Th were executed With the apparent inten-
ton Of vesting the property in her because she
was Kalaau's wife. KAlaau died % the -2ud
Of February, 1854, and was then man Of over
eighty years Of age. For many years he had
been nearly blind, bat until within two OF
three weeks Of bis death was able 10 walk
and 70 get about his own premises without
aid. At the time Of the execution Of the will
and deeds and thereafter tn a veg few day S
before his death bis mind vas usually clear,
and he could see and recognize those people
be knew and talk ratioually with them. lie
was feeble hothin mind and body owing to
his great age, bat he was not insane. He was o.
fair understanding for one Of his years. Doubt
less when he executed the viii and deeds re-
ferred to, and prior viii in favor Of his wife
dated July 80, 1881, he was Of sound mind,
and Of sufficient capacity 10 make such instru-
msnts-
But twenty days passed between the signing
Of the will to the plaintiff and the deeds to the
defendants. There Is DO proof Of change in
bis brain power durins that time. In order
TO recover then, the plaintiff must show that
halasu was deceived and cheated and did
Dot know what the deeds meant, and did not
intend 10 vest the land 10 bis wife-that ho
was uhduly controlled and Influenced by me
defendants, ard BY them or Que Of them in
duced TO do what be did not comprehend.
The testimony bearing on those points is
voluminous on both sides. Kalaau and IA
pika were married in 1874 and lived together
IN harmony until sometime after the execution
Of the will in hapik2's favor bearing date
July 80, ISL. After that, and at the time of
the making Of the will Of October Is, IsS2, in
favor Of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs proof tends
10 show that kapika was untrue to her mar
mage vow: that the defendant Alakema Ma
cue vas her paramOur; that kalazu knew it
and therefore felt hostile 10 her and designed
to disinheril Der on that account by the will
to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs proofs also tend
to show that kapikA failed many tines pro-
perry to attend to the physical wants Of Ka-
laau during the last year Of his life.
The defendants were married about SIX
months after the death Of Kalaau. They both
swear that they were not guilty of adultery
together and their proof tends to show that
kalaau was well and faithfully treated BY
hapika as his wife no to the time Of his death.
haPika Is still 4 young woman apparently
about thirty years old, and her husband is
apparently Younger than she
halaau and hapika had no children, and
by the proof kapikA was kalaau's sole heir.
If 50, but for the will to the plaintiff, Kapika
would have taken all the property By descent.
and half of it, in addition 10 dover, in any
event.
By the deeds to defendants, Kalaau reserved
to himself, in effect, life estate IN his pro-
perry.
The plaintiff is a woman Of middle age and
swoTe that she was an old friend Of Kalaau,
though not rClaiive-ihat she had known
him frUHscLildhood and in her girlhood had
staid at intervals in his family. Just before
the will was drawn she visited Kalaau's
house and learned that lie was staying with
his wife il rooms adjacent to Queen kapio-
lanJs stables. She went aud found him there
lying on mat on the floor, but partly dressed
aud apparently uncared for. Alakema and
kapIks were also there. Kapika saws the
rooms were rooms of Alakema's sister. IA
laau, against kapika's remonstrance, left at
once and went with plaintiff to his own house
Two or three days after that the will to plain
tiff was drawn by native, Kukahiko, pro
cured by plaintiff al halaau's request. Plain
tifi sweaTs It was drawn by Ealaau's express
be said be did not want to
make deed but a will to her, because if he
decided TO her she would not take care of lin.
Plaintiff says she told him TO deed BALI 10 his
wife but he said no, as his wife did not take
care Of him. For couple Of months there
after plaintiff furnished food 10 KaIaau and
collected his rents.
About December Is, lss2, plaintiff and Ku-
kahiko saw notice pasted on a fence on Kala-
aus premises, signed "Kapika" in substance
torbiddlng the payment Of rent 70 any body else
as she had bought the land of Kalaau. They
went 70 hsiaau's house and piaintiff7s version
Of the ensuing quarrel is that she told him she
had seen the notice by his wife that she had
bought the land Of him, and he at once be-
came very angry. He said he did not sell his
place and that plaintiff must 20 to the LAWYER
Hatch with him. He asked his wife if he had
sold his property and she said no he started
10 90 and bis wife held on to him and thew
luarTeled and struggled and fell down TO-
sether. Mrs. Rowland says Mr.. Hatch was
sent for and came and said be drew the deeds,
and Ralaau said be did not understand it 40
Hatch left and kslaau said he must have a
1wyer 10 annul the deeds Kapika however
swears that Hatch asked Kalaau if be wished
. set aside the deed and he said mo" Mr.
/ urston came the came day with Kukahiko.
md kalaau showed anger and said that the
and was his-that he had not sold it-tbat
here was fraud about the land. Mr.. Thurston
allied to get straight story, and went awav,
md in four or i've days returned and saw Ka-
aau and his wife only. The plaintiff was not
hen present. Kalaau's manner had changed
de Wa quiet and said at is done, it will do -
Ar. Thurston's impression was that Kalaau
vas cowed down by outside influences. Ka-
1ika says that at the quarrel the plaintiff and
told Kalaau that he had lost his
and and would be like beggar in the streets
his wife had mind to turn him ont. He
Isked will that be So" and they said ''yes,n
md in consequence Of that Kalaau got angry
With kapika. That she did not tell him he
lot sold his land.
From the plaintiffs evidence Of Kapikas's
nhdelity, and the lack Of care to Kalaau. and
lissent to the deeds, with his feebleness Of
mind and body the plaintiff claims that abe
aust prevail That il is impossible to believe
e intended to do what was done by the deeds.
Is against this however come the stropc
roof Of Hatch, and Widemannthe acknowledg-
bg officer. Mr.. Hatch says that defendant
and the sister Of Alakena were
,resent-that be thinks Kalsau handed him
be Royal Patent. That he asked who was 10
e the grantee in the deed-that they replied |
iapika-but be don't know who replied-that |
.e then explained that Kalaau could not deed |
irectly TO his wife, bat must deed to a third |
iarty and from third party to his wife, and !
uggesied Alakema 10 Be the third party and |
lAlaau said "yes." That be then wrote the |
leeds in Hawaiian and went near the parties |
nd read the deeds slowly 70 Kalsau. he as
ented 10 them, saying yes from time TO time |
: they were read to him. Then Judge Wide |
lann was called in and Hatch asked him TO |
xPlain. the deeds 10 the old man and be did |
0. Judge Widemanu confirms the TESTIMONY |
Hatch and says he took special pains 10 OK |