The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-11-09

to Mr. Adrch before and signed After the deed
signed he went for notary and duly acknowledged
before him. her free and deed 1t signed July 2s
1891 and filed for record the day. becoming public
the world. go
The conduct of the real plaintiffs does sustain their state
ments that there be deed They claim that it
perfectly understood that there be deed executed
in which they were to be the benecare yet of them
makes suggestion what should contain After 1t Is
executed of them inquiries about of Miss Swto
makes any inquiries its Miss Swnton herself only
makes ausion it. according to the statement OF Hattie N
Brown who testes that Miss Swinon said g" don't like those
papers don't like Them but she supposed he knows best that
will be all right she hopes so understand how
claimed vested right property should be
the plaintiffs have been this After the lips OF
Martha sealed that she could vindcate her
lifelong friend and benefacor from the caumny which he
subjected vigorous inquiry and search begins to be made
and immediate steps taken establish what the real plain
s claim be their rights Why this sudden activity after,
why the apathy Immediately prior Miss Swintons death!
The language Miss Swnton after the deed signed
related by Hattie n Brown her testimony is should have
produced immediate action To the reputation of the living
should blasted the memory of the dead consigned to
obloquy upon such showing. =. =. ..-
None the for the plaintiffs with the exception of
Mahuna testify to anything place the time of the
execution of the deed and the alleged fraud of Smith depends
rey upon assumption All of the witnesses for the real plain
t interested with the exception of the plaintiff Henry s.
Swnton who in his testimony dcams all interest and Mahuna
Mr. Swinons testimony indefinite and unsatisfactory There
nothing in the which does ene Mr. Smiths tes
mony to as much weg dny all of the for the real
plaintiffs and he positively and caegocay denies that any
misrepresentation made by him Miss Swnton with the
circumstances strongly few disconnected
his partly words of the lawyer addressing questions
him. with reference what taking place in Miss Swinons
mind her intentions apparently of great weight with the
in the establishment of trust The following of
such questions $50 that the time of making this deed to you
she didn't believe and you didn't her to believe that you
seeking your profit that would take advantage
of the absolute character of the deed in order the property
for your A. don't think she thought reamt it,
This question and have been allowed through
advertence Mr.. Smith could possibly have known what
taking place in Miss Swintons mind excepting indicated
by her conduct and words His is evidence The
question misleading for the that it embraces several
propositions whcdo admit of The testimony
elected under such circumstances my mind entitled
consideration.
Mr. Smiths testimony, taken a whole shows conclusivey
that the property be given him and when he
through with the same, Miss Swinons wish that it should
90 her relatives This undoubtedly the wish Mr.
Smith also, at that time.
fail utterly understand how a constructive be
grated upon deed in the very teeth of the express words of
the deed itself If there be the might possibly
supply that which is omitted from the deed bat ought d
recty violate its provisions The trust any exists
limited the five nephews and niece but extends all those
within the second degree of consanguniy 1t would be difficult
to find clearer of varying written by paro
testimony.
The question of undue influence does arise in this case
There is claim that Smith persuaded Miss Swinon give
the land to him. though she had intended give her
and nhews that is that he overpeuaded her abandon
intention give hem and induced her give it to him.
but the contention that the deed would out
her wishes when he knew that did express at all
The real plaintiffs ask the declare trust in their
favor but there contention that the established
the opinion of the court anything like what Miss Swnton
sired There provision here the Browns there is no
provision with reference the different members of the family
having homestead the premises there no provision for
Miss Swinon herself in she had srvved there is no
trustee control the premises and protect plaintiffs against
each other, which certainly Miss Swinons e else what
would be the object of dee not to be presumed that
Miss Swinon desired to have deed Just for the purpose
of appointing trustee merely with powers; and she makes
no objection when Smith replies her chat only way
stop row., The in this declares +r,