The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-07-15

on account of the ignorance and age of
| Ehu and her husband.
The contract cannot be enforced in
equity, and Losinahama had right
| to purchase the land as she did, not
withstanding her knowledge of an
alleged agreement which was void
| and could not be enforced either in
law or equity.
1 dismiss the bill, and give judg-
ment against the plaintiff for all the
costs in the case"
The case on appeal was presented TO
us by compliments counsel &c Pdrte,
there being no appearance on behalf
of respondents.
On a careful review of the evidence
sent up, we are of opinion that the
findings OF fact of the Circuit Judge
are sustained and we find his conclu-
siOns of law are correct.
Advantage was taken of the old age,
infirmity and ignorance of these two
Hawaiians living in a remote and
almost uninhabited portion of the
Island of Hawaii, who were urged to
consent to the sale for $50 of an undI-
vided interest (the proportion of the
interest not being disclosed), in two
tracts of land in the neighborhood of
a large sugar plantation, one piece
being 1856 acres in extent, and the
other 3 40 acres. The old people
were ignorant that they had any such
interest, and it was shown that the
twenty dollars advanced were thrust
upon the old people, who were afraid
to take it, and who finally and reluc-
family consented TO sell the land If
their moopuna or granddaughter Lo-
sinahama, not then present, and who
supported them, should also consent.
The old people could not read nor
write; the old man, Kaia, was par
TALLY blind, and they say that the
formality of placing their hands on
the pen when their cross-marks were
made by the subscribing witness Kala
Pilipo did not take place. This wit
ness also wrote the name of one Ma
makaokaua " as q subscribing witness
below his own, and did not even have
Namakaokaua affiX his cross mark.
This last named man was not produced
as a witness in the case. We notice
also that on the copy of the alleged
agreement, filed with the bill as an
exhibit, this name does not appear.
Counsel for complainant appellant
makes the point that the respondents
are concluded by their first answer,
where "they admit that they signed
an instrument which they are now
informed and believe constituted q
contract to convey said interest in |
said lands" etc.
This original answer was prepared |
and signed by counsel upon informa- |
ton at distance from their clients. |
An amended answer was afterwards, |
but before hearing, filed, in which |
"they admit that their names were |
signed, but by q third party and not |
at their request, to an instrument in
writing which they have since been |
informed and believe was an agree
ment to convey such lands" Both |
the original and amended answers
contain allegations that they were in
duced to do as they did through ignor-
ance and misunderstanding of the |
occasioned by the deceit and |
misrepresentation of the complainant. |
Under the circumstances it would not |
be right to hold the respondents to the |
in their first answer.
The decree dismissing the bill is /
confirmed.
e. johnson for complainant.
Honolulu, July 6, 1895.