The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-12-06
AAGEY CURE
CASE IS Up
The Ownership of Hotel
Street Property
Decided.

When the celebrated Hagey cure
case has been finally determined, the
Judiciary department will be fairly en-
| titled to a months vacation. 1t is VI
again in the Supreme Court on the
plaintiffs appeal from Judge Robin
| sons judgment of nonsuit Several
points not hitherto decided are likely
to be cleared up on this occasion.
| Robertson & Wilder are assisting the
plaintiff in person, T. NJ. Harrison, and
| Kinney, McClanahan & Cooper and S,
H Derby are associated with j. Alfred
Magoon in person for himself and the
other defendants. Mr.. Harrison made
the principal argument on his own
side yesterday. The hearing continues
today
OLD CASE DETERMINED.
Exceptions to verdict for the plain
tiff in the suit of Hawaiian Trust and
Investment Co., Ltd, VS.. Annie Bar
| ton. Helen A. Dunning, Gear, Lansing
& Co. J. Oswald Lutted and Sullivan
& Buckley are overruled by a unani-
nous decision of the Supreme Court
Justice Hartwell is author of the opin-
ion in which Circuit Judge Robinson
sitting in place of Justice Hatch, joins,
Chief Justice Frear writing a short
concurring opinion. Kinney, McClana-
han & Cooper and S. H. Derby appear
ed for plaintiff; Robertson & Wilder
and Holmes & Stanley for defendants.
The PLAINTIFF brought an action of
ejectment and obtained a verdict in
its favor for an undivided fourth
of certain land and premises in
Honolulu known as the Canton
Hotel, basing its claim on a convey
ance from George A. Aldrich dated
October 81, 1898, who claimed the prop
Elizabeth NJ Aldrich, one of the dew
isees under the will of r. w. Holt,
and who died intestate leaving four
children including the son. By Holt s
will his widow received an annuity of
$500 for life. One-fourth of all the rest
of his property went to each of his
three sons for life over to their respec-
tive heirs The remaining fourth was
devised directly to his said daughter.
The land was patented to James Rob-
inson, Robert Lawrence and Robert
w. Holt, who held the land as part
nership property. The executor Of
Hollis will filed a bill in equity for
sale and division and the surviving
partners concurred therein, the execu-
tor, as trustee for the legatees, bought
the parcels of land for an aggregate
of s26,6S0, the surviving parties receiv-
ed their shares and the executor OBJ
tanned a deed of the Canton Hotel
premises. Though the agreement of
partition was a parol one, everything
seems to have been approved by the
probate court of the time.
In 1868 there was a division of prop
erty between Hollis heirs, when Mrs.
Aldrich accepted. as part Of the set
Element with her, the Canton Hotel
premises. The conveyance by her son
to plaintiff mentioned above was at
tackled in this suit on two grounds.
First, that the words, ''for the uses
and purposes therein set forth" were
omitted from the certificate of
acknowledgment. Second, that AL
drich was insane when he gave the
deed. Exceptions were taken to the
refusal of the trial court to admit in
evidence records of the Superior Court
of San Francisco to prove Aldrich's
insanity
1t was contended by the plaintiff
that the legal title was in Mrs. AL
drich, that a parol partition was made
which was sufficient under our statute,
that the certificate of acknowledge
ment was not radically defective, that
a conveyance by an insane person is
not absolutely void but merely void
able and cannot be attacked collateral
ly: also that the evidence of the gran
tors insanity was incompetent.
The findings of the court to support
the affirming of the verdict are in con-
densed form the following:
l. The conveyance in 1862 to AL
drich trustee under Hollis will, vests
the legal title in the testator's daugh-
ter Elizabeth. to whom the will de-
vised an undivided fourth of the es-
tate.
2 A sufficient memorandum was
signed by the parties in interest to
show a partition.
g. The certificate of acknowledge
ment of the deed is substantially in
the form required by statute.
4. Records of the California court to
show insanity of the grantor of a deed
are inadmissible as evidence, because
the requirements of Hawaiian law
were not fulflled-namely, notice to
the insane person and the appointment
of guardian TO protect his interests.
There are quotations in the courts
opinion from ancient English statutes
with the funny spelling of past CEN
turtles.
Prior to the trial reviewed in this
decision there was another trial of the
case, when a judgment of nonsuit was
given which was reversed by the Su-
prene Court The property Isl situated