The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-02-28
Supreze Court OF the Hawaiian Isl
andS--In Equity.
1 KANAKANJ-I AND kAUPAIoJo "
+. l. LESLIE.

.ee5ra 1- t's.sarsAiar .l-LEL
TAis Is = bill in equity 10 st aside
q deed on the gpund al fraud which
is alleged 10 h thai defendant ana
: his h7other-iR-lSv, George Freiden-
berg. persuaded one HaSe, ". now
deceased. and hsnSkanui, plaintiff
her husband, 70 convey certain prem
7 iseS IN hapuukolo. Honolulu. 70 him,
{ Leslie. fol the delicious oon>iders-
: tion Of fifteen hundred dollars, in
{ order that he might he the 2geut Of
] the EantorS TO recover of the Gov
erumeat damages for such portion Of
J the premises = II might rake fer 3
! mad
The zrea, ire which destroyed
several houses on this Izui. occurred
en- the 18th day Of April, 1885, and
the deed In question MAS executed
! On the 18th Of April
The evidence on the part Of the
Plaintiffs i "a the sff5-. that these
repreSeutstio1S were made and that
No money Was ever paid for the land
The evidence for the defendant i 70
the effect that 70 such Representa-
tionS were inside, bur thar s gen
uiue ssIe OF the premises wa> accom-
plished Snd the full consideration Of
fifteen hundred dollars was p8id.
Most o. the testimony i upon the
question whether the consideration
was paid. and It Is exceedingly con-
6icring. developing, ! regret 70 say,
gross perjury o. one side or the
other.
But 1 have come u the conclusion
derived from witnesses that are dis
interested. that the deed WAS exc
cared uuderStandingly by the grant
or. and $ bona tide Sise effected
The secret truS-. II any existed. wsS
not disclosed by the grantorS when
the deed vsS Rad and explained 70
them Or AIr. NOnSarraJt- think
they wolld naturally have done -
when they found that the deed Was
silent on this ul4tce-. There i no
evidence By the plaintiff. hauakanui.
Whose testimony ! mainly relied
upau that he was cautioned not 10
mention Il when the deed should be
rssd. In fact his conduct in quitting
the land after hi wife's death. upon
notice 70 him by Leslie, i consistent
with the view thzC q sale wss in
tended. a1d Le>lie's conduct II deal
ing with the tenants On the land.
even before hsSe'> death i also COR
siztent with this view.
That Leslie did not claim PISSeS-
sion u the land from hase and R2-
nakanui il the lifetime OF Kaae. i
accounted for by tie fscJ that Freid-
emery. LzSlie'S b-ut- =r-in-IaW. was
living with haae. on the premises,
II her Parlcl0ur. sud because Leslie
did not have al hist time, any Use
for the premises with which their
possession would interfere.
The question whether The cou>id-
eatioa was paid i i grave one, but
the mere failure 10 pay for the land.
i ulr Of itself sufficient reason fol
annulling the deed. Having found
that the intention u the parties Was
10 sell the land. upon the Testimony
Of pecse1s who are nor involved il
the question whether the purchase
money waS paid. / have come 70 the
eoncl1Siou that The deed must stand.
The plaintiffs CD have their action
for the purchase money. and 1 refrain
from giving any opinion whether i
vas paid. - il might prejudice the
parties 70 such an GeEi51, a also tht
case Of s charge Of conspiracy against
TWO OF the witnesses fer the plaintiff
l dismiss the biI.
W C. Achi for plaintiffs J. N
aIonsarrau and z. n. Hatch for de
feldant-
Honolulu. November 10. 1857
S-,-.s-e Cent az the Hawaiian