The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-12-09


The respondent, z. Paakiki, an at
torney of the lower courts, was cited
at the May Term, 1892, of the Circuit
Court of the Third Judicial Circuit,
to show cause why he should n lot be
disbarred. On motion of respon-
dent, the Deputy Attorney General
and the Court consenting, the matter |
was brought to the Supreme Court |
and was heard during the July Term
by Chief Justice Judd and MIR. JUS
tice Bickerton, Mr.. Justice Dole
being unable to sit he holding the
term, but having read the testimony
Joins in the decision.
The charge against the respon-
dent is in substance as follows: That
at Honokaa, Hamakua, Hawaii, on
the 29th of October, 1890. he advised,
procured and caused Kamakawiwo-
ole, j. w. Kaluahine and 5. w. IA
lua to appear before r. A. Lyman, a
notary public, and sign and make
oath to affidavits that they were
present on the 26th of July, 1890,
and saw one Kaholokahi sign a deed
of conveyance of land from him to
Kaikaina, the respondent, we'll know
ing that this was untrue and that
the said deed was false and forged.
And further, that on the 22d of
November, 1890, the respondent adj
vised, procured and caused the same
persons to appear before Hon. +. s.
Lyman, Circuit Judge of the Third
Judicial Circuit while at Honokaa
in Hamakua, Hawaii, and make
oath that they had seen Kaholokahi
sign the said deed on the 18th of
July, 1890, respondent well knowing,
having been so informed by those
witnesses that they did not see Ka-
holokahi sign the deed, and that it
was false and forged. At the May
Term, 1892, of the Circuit Court of
the Third Circuit, S. w. Kalua and j..
w. Kaluahine were tried for the forg
cry of the said deed. Kalua was con-
victed and Kaluahine acquitted by
the jury.
The alleged grantor KaholokahI
was, On Thursday July oath, 109O)
run over by railroad car at Homo
kaa. his head and chest receiving
severe injuries of which he died on
Saturday night, July Goth. The testi-
mony before US of Kamakawiwooie
and j. w. Kaluahine, is to the effect
that Kaholokahi, after receiving
these injuries from the railroad acct
dent, Law in a condition of pain and
weakness from Thursday, when the
accident occurred, until Saturday,
when he died, and that no instru-
ment of any character was signed by
him, and that he was not in condi-
ton to have done any such act. Ka-
1uahine visited Kaholokahi four
times, and Kamakawiwoole and his
wife stayed with the injured man all
the time until he died. They say that
this accident was we'll known through
out the district, and that many people
came to see Kaholokahi. They both
saw that Paakiki, the respondent
knew that Kaholokahi had died with
out making deed, but that he urgee
them to appear as witnesses both be
fore r. A. Lyman, Notary Public, ant
Honorable f. S. Lyman, Circui
Judge, and testify that they wer'
present and saw Kaholokahi execut
the deed in question. They also So.
that Kalua, who was the father 9
the grantee named in the forge'
deed, urged them to be witnesse
and paid them for it. The fact ths
the deed when presented to both th
Notary Public and the Circu
Judge did not have the names {
any subscribing witnesses thereto
made it impossible to prove il
execution in order to admit it
record. The respondents first effol
was to take the testimony of Wi
nesses who said before the nota1
that they saw the deed execute
This was in October of 1890. Abor
month later the deed was taken (
respondent before the circuit juds
for proof, and Judge Lyman g
dorsed upon the deed the statemel
that Kaluahine and Kalua were pre-
emit when the deed was executed
Kaholokahi.
A strange incident in this case
that copy of this deed was made
some one, including Judge Lyman
certificate and signature, sent by 4
lua to the Record Office in Honolulu
and by the officials there inadve
emily recorded as though it was &c
uine, and sent back to Kalua. A.
another strange feature is that Il
instrument now contains the wo
copy" above Judge Lyman's cert
cate, whereas when it was produc
at the Registry Office for record
did not have this word upon it.
p. X. Malulani, brother attorney
respondent and apparently not W
friendly with him, says that She
Hitchcock Intercepted him at
November Term, 1890, and show
him the deed in question, and tha
contained the word "copy," as abb
set forth, and that he had cony
sation with Paakiki, and that z
kiki said that he was all right III
as the deed contained the W
'scopy," for if it had been the origi
deed, which Hitchcock had, he wo
be s'pilikia," but now he was out
trouble, as the deed was only co
An artful and deliberate forg
was undoubtedly accomplished
this case. Kalua is now undergo
punishment for it. But the witnes
duplicating the respondent in
matter, If not pdrticeps crinainis, b
told falsehoods to both the Mes
LYMAN, and we are averse to I