The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-09-24
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR. ].

OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR J.
This suit in equity for the cancellation of deed the
ground that its execution by fraud The Circuit
Judge dismissed the bill defendants motion the close of
the compliments evidence the ground that she had made
her and she here appeal conendg that
her evidence sufficient to sustain the bill
The complainant claims have been the of the Ahu
puaa of Nanue Hlo Hawaii containing about 40 On
December 81 1888 she executed lease of all but 25 of
Ahupuaa the defendant Walker annual rental of
$780, the lessee also erect for the lessor house of the value
of $500 She afterwards executed Decd dated June g. 1897
of this land Walker for consideration of $4,000 also
Z 1887, remaining
5000. On October 90 1885, Walker
leased the covered by the deed the Hakaau Plantation
Co.. at an annual rental of 5000 The complainant admits that
she the deed but claims that her thereto
obtained by fraud she suppong the time that she sign
ing duplicate of the lease of the Is tract.
After of evidence of the
opinion that it is insufficient support the bill No doubt the
evidence such reflect credit upon Mr. Walker
in his dealings and relations with the plaintiff and yet the
time is not of the clear and satisfactory nature required
for the cancellation of deed 1t the consideration
named the deed small considering the value of the land
and it does appear that has all been paid The rentals
under the leases also appear to have been all paid The
explanation appears be found in the relations sustained be-
Walker and the plaintiff during the period of his trans
actions with her. He appears have paid her small of
money from time time but strict kept be-
them They dealt with each other in part upon basis
outside of what appeared in the written documents Inadequacy
OF consideration failure to pay part OF has not the weight
this that might have under other circumstances
support of the theory of audnot only of the
relations referred existing between the parties but also be-
in this the theory that the plaintiff did not know
ngy deed at ALL This the main question in the
casewhether she executed the deed knowing it be deed
direct evidence the question of the
pnan knowledge of the character of the instrument she
ecued principal that regard the
letter and conduct of Walker when written compliments
counsel in regard this matter before the
of this Walker compliments counsel that he had
conclusive and overwhelming proof that the plaintiff knew of
the deed and that he had dealt fairly by her. and then he sent
messenger the complainant herself promising pay her
money support her if she would sign acknowledgment
that she had been paid full for the land This also be
explained by reference the relations that had existed between
the parties One in Walkers position would naturally endeavor
to avoid publicity Moreover his offer might be explained on
the theory that the deed had been signed knowingly but that
little of the consideration had been paid well the
theory that the signature had been procured by fraud IN the
first instance While this conduct reflect unfavorably
upon Walkers past relations dealings with the complainant
it sufficient either itself connection with the other
evidence in the to sustain the bill
The testimony the complainant herself is relied chiefly
Of this the Circuit Judge in his opinion In my
perience of little years officer Of this Court
never knew of such bad of false testimony Her counsel
contradictions testimony but contend
that they explained by the fact that she eper well adj
vanced in the disease and that she has for time been of
unond mind running times into the bush tearing off her
clothes and remaining there for days. and other times
talking to imaginary Whether the contradictions
the result false ound mind the fact remains
that the testimony reliable
the cancellation of deed with
the other evidence in the It will useful purpose
review her testimony at length portion of will show It's
unsatisfactory character She stated under oath in her bill that
she first received information of the deed within months last
past She testified direct examination that the two copies
of the signed by both parties evening downstairs
stairs her in order that witnesses might her copy
that both there signed document which the two witnesses
also signed that she then took the paper and kept it that this
the deed question; that Walker left at O'Clock the next
morning On croexamnaton she testified that she thought
the paper signed upstairs third copy of the lease her
copy that signed by mistake without stopping
whether she had signed already and that she kept the copy that
signed upstairs for several when she to her
lawyer also that shortly after this many persons told her she
and told them she did sell
and asked of the witnesses the deed who told her that she
it, that native lawyer who drafted the papers
he aftp
her lease; that this made papers in her
that the lawyer then asked her for the deed and that she told
him he had been doing rascay trick and then him the
deed and he gave Walker who then away; that then
she knew she had given deed Both copies of the lease dated