The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-01-10

that the trustee be discharged and the
deed cancelled.
'The prayer of Victoria Buffandeau,
John S. Ellis and William S. Ellis prac-
tically joins in the prayer of the petit
toner. and I find as a matter of fact
the alleged deed of trust was executed
in the manner and under the circum-
stances as set forth in pages two and
three of the answer of the Ellises, de-
PENDANTS" CThis portion of the answer
was read. 1t set out the first proceed
ings by Maria Davis to have the old
man put under guardianship, and the
subsequent pro forma decree of the
Supreme Court declaring him sane)
! while it is true that under the de-
cision and decree of the Supreme Court
John X Sumner was a sane person, and
that he stands before the court today
as a sane man, yet the peculiar cir
cumstances surrounding the execution
of the deed are such that it could not
be considered a voluntary act, and it
seems that there was some question as
to his sanity.
/ while the Supreme Court did enter
up pro forma decree saying the old
man was sane, yet there is still some
question as to his mental capacity.
There was no evidence introduced to
called TO the provisions of the deed or
that he was told it was irrevocable.
1t seems to me to be very clear that
the deed is revocable; the facts and
circumstances disclosed by the evidence
in this trial present a most remark
able case. Here is an old man, over
eighty years of age, no wife or chill
dren, who owns valuable property, and
who is also free of the claims of any
other person upon him, and though he
has near relations, 1 don't consider that
they have a legal or even a moral claim
to his property; we find him selling
property for $4,000 which it is intimat-
ed is worth $25O000, and he appears
in court with the $4,000 slipping away
and vanishing excepting s4S,O25
for this; $50, 900 was paid to the Ellises,
$4,000 to Maria S. Davis, $4,000 was
paid to the various attorneys in the
case, and it seemed absolutely imma-
terial who the attorneys worked for
John K. Sumner paid those who work
ed against him and those who worked
for him, alike. Then there were $1,000
paid to r. w. Cathcart for which
.Cathcart says he worked for Sumner,
and 1 judged from the tone of his testi-
mony that he did not expect to receive
any pay for it. Mr.. Summer says that
all he did was to look over some ac
counts for him, and he paid him fifteen
dollars for that; and $4,000 to the
Catholic church. This does not quite
account for all the money, and the evil
'dence is not quite clear as to what be- |
came of the remainder. On the other |
hand if this deed was not revoked by |
the acts of the old man, it seems estab-
lished beyond question that there was
an agreement between all parties con- |
cerned that it should be terminated, and
that the Ellis children and Maria Davis (
entered into an. arrangement by which /
the whole matter was settled. Some |
facts cannot be accounted for by ex-
press words, but actions speak louder
than words in some instances. When !
this property was sold for $4,000, all |
parties signed the deed though there
about signing it. The testimony shows
that Willie wanted S15 900 and would !
not take $4,000. Now if this was a
gift outright, there would have been
no discussion as to amount, for if it
was a gift, Willie would not have asked
for more. That is hardly common
sense. But if they were entering into
a bargain for the sale of their interests
in this property there might have been
some discussion. 1t looks as if there
were negotiations between Sumner and
Willie, that Sumner wanted to give &c.,
600 while Willie asked $4,000, though
the evidence showed that he did finally
agree and did accept $4,000.
Now it seems also that the Bishop
that the trust was closed;
if he considered that he was still trus-
tee he would have claimed possession
of this money. But we find that Ma
COON and Sumner went to the church,
where. there was meeting. and the
Bishop went over his accounts, and
found that the books showed balance
of $4S, OPS for which he drew his check
and handed to John K. Sumner Why
did the Bishop do that? Because he
that the trust was terminal
ed. He knew of these various transac-
sale of the land, and the
of the money to those who
claimed an interest. and he probably