The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-03-07

Assuming but without finding that these representations
made ard that they false the fact remains that they were
relied upon the complainant and that she was not thereby
induced the conveyance. Not only did she dst her
brother but her testimony and letters clearly show she
had prior the execution of the deed independent advice
the value of from number of dnerested men who
through long residence these Islands, were familiar with the
of land here. Some of these advised her IN ample
time permit due consideration ON her part and IN ac even
efoe she requesting her tell Charles that she
would sell for three thousand dollars that the whole land was
worth fifty thousand and that she had better ask five thou
sand dollars for her interest sell at all In spite OF that
advice however and for which her seemed sufficient
she determined sell for three thousand dollars In letter
August 10TH 1898 Clara wherein she reces the above
stated advice and refers the increase in land values in Homo
lulu due annexation she says: But look at 1t this way
sick and need the now more than Will bye ana
bye. leave it entirely to you Clara to tell Charle
what say that will sell for $4,000 cash and quit all claim
IF let know and will send the power OF attor
new down to YOU or some one else for me- In another
letter undated she says We Clara signed the papers and
got the money. thank YOU for your kindness and
Influence YOU brought bear in the settling up
quickly you say certainly need it now She sold OF
her own WILL because seemed her best do and for
price named by herself with full knowledge of all material
facts and circumstances and after receiving independent and
disntereed advice Upon all the evidence the verments OF
misrepresentation and OF reliance thereupon are we beeV
utterly without foundation
AS to nadequacy of consideration The land question
With other property conveyed by Joseph Booth the father OF
principal parties heren by deed dated April 30 1866 to
trustees for certain and purposes therein named
Joseph Booth died ntestate leaving surviving him has widow
who still living and nine children two of whom have died
unmarried without issue Whether not the deed OF trust
is void attempting pepetuy what interest any
complainant had the property prior the date of her
vevance bv virtue the deed of otherwise and whether
q, NOT she had lost that interest by adverse possession other
wise are questions upon which complainant and respondent
Booth seem to entertained differing views Companans
counsel the theory that her interest was an undivided
onesevenh while behalf of her brother 1t conended that
at best she owned only onennth interest subject to life
estate her mother Booth personally has commended for many
wears that complainant had lost whatever interest If she
originally had in the land 1t unnecessary in this case to
conrue the deed of say what interest if
had ha
that she owned an undivided onesvenh interest In order to
show nadequacy of consideration is averred in the bill that
in or about September 1898 Booth entered into negotiations
with respondent Dky for the sale and purchase of the land
in question for the sum 100000 and that February 10
1899 the said parties executed agreement in writing for such
sale and purchase and it is argued that therefore
interest therein at the date of deed worth $4,000 The
correctness of this avermprt o wholly dsproved by the evil
dence The property which the of 600 was agreed