The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-04-23

| fell upon the following day, the 18th
Of November, Sunday, and it is a
matter OF general knowledge that the
| birthday celebration took place on
Saturday the said 18th day of Nov
ember.
The ceremonies consisted, as was
customary, of hookupu, reception
at which the native friends of the
King brought birthday gifts to him.
This ceremony lasted until s a. M, at
which time the King took his break
fast. After breakfast he received
the Hale Naua Society until 10
O'Clock a. M, when the Hooululahul
Society was received. After this
ceremony the King dressed and at IL
O'Clock q. m, received the civil officers
of the various departments, Privy
Councillors, etc, until II m, when
the reception of foreign representa-
tives, consuls and Z. S. Naval officers
took place, which lasted until about 1
O'Clock D. M, after which hour the
King left the Palace.
The King left Honolulu on the
25th day of November, 1890, for Cali
fornia and died there on the Goth of
January, 1891.
In the opinion fled in the Circuit
Court the learned judge descants
upon the testimony of the expert
whether the signature of King Kala-
kaua Is genuine or not, so thorough
~ and ably that little doubt remains
Of that signature being forgery and
this conclusion holds good as to the
signatures to the receipt for the pur-
chase money and the letter Of in
structions to the surveyor produced
by the defendant.
This assumption of the spurious
ness of the signatures is sought to be
refuted by the testimony of the
witnesses who attested the act of
signing; by that of the defendant;
that of Isaac Sherwood and incident
ally by that of Kaaukai the surveyor.
The testimony of the attesting witness
ses is not alone suspiciously con-
Trajectory but so minutely circum-
stantial, in spite of the lapse of three
years, as to impeach its verify.
These witnesses state that they
signed in the following order, first
Okuu, next Kalaeokekoi, last Zepi-
limo. The name of Okuu being in
black ink, the name of Kalaeokekoi
appearing in very faint ink and that
Of Zepilino in dark ink. Okuu,
Zepilino and defendant testify that
defendant shook the ink bottle be-
fore Zepilino signed, all these witnes.
ses testify that there was but one ink
bottle and all say that the signatures
were made with one pen except
Sherwood, who says there were two
bottles of ink. These statements
about trivial incident made as be-
fore mentioned after a lapse of
several years and yet wildly remem-
bered by the witnesses, appear to
have been adapted to the circum-
stance Of the noticeable difference in
the ink with which the signatures
are shown to have been made.
No proof was offered to corroborate
the statement of Mahelona that to
make up the amount Of $4,000, the
alleged purchase money, he borrowed
$1,000 In gold from his son Samuel, a
fact apparently easy of proof, and
the failure to produce some testi-
mony in that direction makes that
statement apocryphal.
It is difficult to reject testimony so
direct and so infinitely detailed as
that, which was presented by the
but from the evidence for
plaintiff lin its nature untainted with
it appears convinciDgly:
first, that between 9 and III o'clock a.
NJ, of November 18th, 1890, when
the deed is alleged to have been
signed by Kalakaua Or at any time
before at least 1 80 o'clock p. m, of
that day the King was not at his
boat house where the transaction is
said to have taken place. Second,
that Isaac Sherwood, alleged to have
been an eye witness to and actor on
the occasion of the signing and who
wrote the deed was on that day not
In Honolulu but at Kailua on the
Island Of Hawaii. Third, that
Kalaeokekoi, the witness whose
signature appears to have been made
in ink different from that of the
others was on that day not in Homo
lulu, but at Kahua, on the Island of
Hawaii. Fourth, that during nearly
two years the alleged grantee of
for which he claims to have
paid $4,000, neglected to take the
steps necessary to entitle his deed to
be recorded, without explanation of
such neglect and without notifying
the legal representatives of the
deceased King of the existence of
the deed and of his claim hereunder.
Fifth, credible witnesses shown to
have been thoroughly familiar with
the late Kings handwriting and
signature testify unerringly that the !
to the deed and receipt of |
the King are spurious. Sixth, that |
while the defendant claims to have |
paid $4,000 for the property there is
1ncontradicted testimony that the |
value of the property approaches the |
sum of $4,000.
This is sufficient, if evidence can
suffice, to prove that the deed in |
question was never signed by the |
alleged granEor and that the decree |
IF tho Hirouif Ju60o Youct ho affirm