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

10 be paid included not only the land in which complainant
claimed Booth had purchased all other outstanding
interests in this and but also water right which, 1t is nde
MED belonged Booth alone Counsel for complainant claimed
in that the value of this right only $500
because that the sum paid by Booth Tor the kueana Oh
which the had It's The undpued evidence, how
ever Booth various times within period of about
fifteen years last past has paid in all the sum OF Tor the
purchase of keanas which had rights the water in question
ard all of which have deprived of said consequence
of the Desy Undputed evidence further shows that
without the right obtained from Booth, the land itself
which Desky purchased for the purpose of Improvement and OF
dividing up residence lots for SALE worth comparatively
leits value merely that of pasture land Precisely
what its value without the water right does not appear
had Welded 800 per for pastuage purposes MI
Deky called witness for the complainant testified that ITS
value exclusive of the right between $50 and Sloo
per acre. evidence does show what the total area was
omplanan upon whom burden of proof lies has failed to
that the price paid her grossly inadequate or even
that inadequate ALL sale moreover can not be set
aside for mere nadeouacv consideration; only where the
nrce paid so gross inadequate shock the conscience and
raise strong presumption of fraud that equity will relieve the
ground of relief being the nadequacy but the fraud evil
denced thereby.
As additional ground the reversal of the decree and for
an remandng the for further hearing three alleged
errors in rulings the admission rejection of evidence are
ponted out a. the refusal allow the question: addressed to
Booth W you be kind enough to state how much you pad
all the heirs the whole sum together on PAD MIS-
BERGER $1,000 how much did you pay at ~ the re-
fua to allow the question be put complainant Did you
have any with Mr. Magoon about this matter IN
San Francisco; GU the admission in evidence upon the
respondents offer during the examination OF the complain
ant of letters written and identified by her.
The questions asked after the crosseS
animation had ended and not boug out by anything a
preceded it. Neither its object maeraly shown by
counsel for the plaintiff At that stage of the proceedings the
matter of permitting dsaowng the question was one WITHIN
the discretion of the court W THINK there was no ' u ~
erection in the ruling made
The second question asked in redirect examination ana
was not brought by matter elected IN
on There was abuse of discretion In the ruling moreover
tho evidence sought was nots shown to be material
There was admitting the letters IN evidence. oP
direct examination complainant had made certain Statements
;notion RESPONDENTS counsel sought to destroy the
effect Of that testimony show by the witness herself har
ntre and Incorrect The letters in the nature OF a
missions by the complainant to that effect and were
ritted in evidence r ::
The suit without merit. The decree appealed from Is
affirmed.
Darts ee Gear for complainant.
j. A. lagoon and Kinney Ballon d hectana6on f'f
respondent G. w. Booth
Hatch Dc SH1inan for respondent Chas ) Desky. zg