The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-06-10
COURT CHRONICLE.
Judge Cooper Refuses to Set Aside a
Deed to King Kalakaua.

A decision was fled this morning
by Judge Cooper in the Circuit
Court, on the case of Annie Lilika-
lani Ulukou VS.. H. r. H. the Queen
Dowager Kapiolani. 1t was bill in
equity to cancel deed made by the
plaintiff and her mother, now de-
ceased, to his late Majesty Kala-
kaua and II. r. H. Kapiolani. In
| 1871 Kalakaua executed deed to
q. w. Lilikalani conveying sundry
pieces of land therein mentioned
for the sum of $3.50. A lease be-
tween the same parties for several
lots of land was executed the same
year, to run for twenty years at an
annual rental of 500. G. w. Lii
kalani died in 1874. In April, 1885,
the plaintiff and her mother executed
deed to Kalakaua and Kapiolani,
by which they conveyed all the
lands previously conveyed by Kala-
kaua to Lilikalani, for the consider
alton, expressed, of one dollar and
the release from all obligations to
pay the rent agreed to be paid by
Lilikalani by the lease of Oct. |,
1871. 1t is this deed That is sought
to be cancelled.
1t is contended on the part of the
plaintiff that her mother and her.
self were induced to sign the deed
by reason of promise TO pay a sti-
pend of so month to them, and
that such promise was made for the
purpose of cheating and defrauding
them, and also that they we're under
duress and in fear of the king. 1t
seems to the Judge that these con
tentions on the part of the plaintiff
are not in harmony with each other,
for if the promise to pay was the in
ducement which caused them to
sign the deed then there was no
legal duress, and, further, there hav-
ing been a promise to pay con-
sideration, which certainly was not
shown to be inadequate, there is no
reason for setting aside the deed on
that ground, but the parties must
be left to their action at law, to en-.
force the payment of the obligation.
, AS to the question of duress, Judge
Cooper takes full cognizance of the
habitual Difference of Hawaiians tc
their chiefs, but he finds in effect
that the evidence in this case has
proved too much. If those people
, were in such awe and dread of tn,
king as to be amenable to his slight
est wish or demand, it was strange
that they should have held ou
against the kings request, often re
peated, that they should sign tn,
deed, for more than ten years. Th'
plaintiff testified that although sh'
looked upon the wish or desire o
the king as rule which she mus
r follow at all times, yet in this cas-
| Notwithstanding the king had calle'
v upon them and requested them T.
: sign the deed, and had sent them
I letter in which he offered to pay tn
: monthly stipend of so, still, whel
@ the deed came by the kings messen
j. ger she was unwilling to sign it, blu
{ was finally induced to do so by he
s mother, who considered that it wa
@ best for her to do as the king wishe,
a and to receive the money ever
r month, for if they kept the land he
l. husband might sell it.
$ If the deed had been obtained b
VI d ueilalll upon JIG Pail "llc
It they could not in their situatio
70 have refused, the Judge says h
II would look upon the case in "a yer
d different light. The claim that tn
N promise to pay the $40 was mad
n with the intent to defraud the plail
a tiff, it seems to the Court, cannot J.
gone into in this case. His Hono
concludes: 81 am therefore force
to the conclusion that no sut1icel
ground has been shown for grantin
the prayer of the plaintiff, and f'
. that reason the bill must be dismis
ed; and it is so ordered. Decree a
cordingly."
a. w. r. Castle for plaintiff; F.
~ Hatch for defendant.