The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-11-06
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR. ].

This decided Goth July last, ante 1O5. On the
28th the principal complainant filed motion for reearing
without setting forth grounds therefor On October D. the
day the motion reached the calendar she filed speca
tons OF grounds as follows:
"The undisputed testimony given in said cause shows
First that r. n. Boyd acting in fducary capacity for
the grantee and that he also the paid of the grantee
Second the grantors fatty and persisteny refused
sign the deed when they learned that the Hamakua land
included.
Third that plaintiff had Independent advice.
Fourth that the consideration for the sale grossly dis
proportonae to the value of the property.
Fifth that the of such mprovdent nature
that of sound mind could have entered into it, hence
the certainty that could have been understood by the
plaintiff.
Sixth that all appearances when the deed signed
plaintiff would have signed she had had Independent ad
vice time for consideration.
Seventh that though r. n Boyd who acting the agent
of plaintiff and knew that plaintiff under the impression
that Magoon forecong the the land in
ton investigated the matter attempted to put plaintiff
in the way of asceraning the truth.
Eighth that till after repeated urging and threats
of Boyd that she consented to sign.
Ninth that defendant acting in good faith in that
he he would not give twelve hundred dollars for land
which worth twenty-five hundred dollars and yet he states
that he would not sell the land for any price.
Tenth that the whole transaction when taken together from
the admissions of defendant and his witnesses and what clear
IF the evidence shows neouitab and
unjust and should be frowned down.
Eleventh. that upon the unconroverted facts the decision
entirely unsupported by authority"
This Court has repeatedly stated in what general
eheang will be granted and at the hearing this motion the
Court asked counsel upon which of the recognized grounds for
rehearng they relied Counsel did pretend that the
within the rules hitherto followed but claimed right
rehearng substantially upon the ground that the Court had
wrong conclusion the first hearing and examina
ton of the grounds forth the specifications above forth
and comparison those grounds with the points covered the
former decision will show that the Court asked practically
go the whole again. Great latitude allowed
in argument upon this motion Indeed the whole
argued the motion not only fully it should have
been rehearng but fully than argued
the first hearing This permitted because of special ccum
and with the of opposing counsel subject how
be preservation of his right insist that the motion
should not be allowed In opinion sufficient ground
for reearng has been shown The very
similar those in Verra ROper 10 Haw 343 in which
rehearing refused All the grounds urged upon the
Court carefully considered the first hearing The
decision shown to be in conflict with with
controlling former decision which the attention of the
Court drawn has been shown that point duly
submitted by counsel overlooked by the Court that the
decision based upon point raised argued by
sell Whether these the only which reear
ing will be granted under circumstances certainly rehear
ing should not be granted merely that counsel present
again substantially the first hearing in the hope that
the Court may be induced different conclusion
This Court and always has been ready its records show
its decisions in proper In this not
wtsandng the full argument that has been made
the former decision But base the present decision
upon the ground that the former decision
ehearng had been had but upon ground that proper
case for rehearing has not been made
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.
MagOon 6 Edings for compliments,
A. g. II. Robertson. for defendant