The Hawaiian gazette., 1904-04-01
BOOTH GIVES
HIS VERSION
Claims He Acted
Fairly With
Desky.
(From Thursdays Daily)

(From Thursdays Daily)
A motion to dissolve injunction has
been filed in the case of Charles ).
Desky VS.. C. w. Booth and w. Il. Fish
er by j. Alfred Magoon and j. Light
foot. attorneys for Booth. Defendant
Booth has also filed an answer to the
complaint He says that Desky caused
a survey of half the Pacific Heights
tract into lots to be made but that the
survey is inaccurate and plaintiff has
never recorded it because of its inaccu-
racy. on this account it is alleged that
no bidders could be obtained for the
lots if put up separately.
CONTRADICTIONS.
Plaintiffs statement that the mort
gage in question was 'hurriedly drawn
and executed through inadvertence and
mutual mistake of the parties" is de-
clared wholly false and untrue 1t
being alleged on the contrary that the
mortgage was drawn with great care
and elaboration by r. d. Silliman of
the firm of Hatch & Silliman, attorneys
of plaintiff, being the same attorney
as drew the agreement
Defendant denies that it was mu-
tually agreed by and between him and
plaintiff that all Improvements placed
on said Pacific Heights property by
plaintiff, and all lots, blocks and tracts
of land being part of said Pacihc
Heights property, which, prior to the
execution of said mortgage, might have
been sold agreed to be sold, or other
wise disposed of by plaintiff or his
agents, should be excluded and exempt
ed from the operation of said mort
gage
AS TO RELEASES.
1t is also denied that promises of re-
leases were made by defendant as stat
ed in the complaint. The allegation
of lack of knowledge of contents of the
mortgage on the part of the plaintin
is declared wholly false and untrue.
A release was given to the Pacific
Heights Electric Railway Co. on per-
sonal appeal to defendant by plaintiff
but it is alleged that plaintiff never
requested defendant to release the lots
and property which plaintiff alleges are
improperly included in the mortgage,
neither had he offered to pay the de-
PENDANT the amount reserved in the
mortgage for release thereof.
HELPED, NOT HINDERED.
1t is asserted that this defendant,
instead of attempting to harass, i'm
pede and embarrass plaintiff in the
matter of the development of the SAID
land and the sale thereof, has at all
times co-operated with plaintiff and as
sisted him by every means in his pow
err" When plaintiff had expended, ac-
cording to his own statement, over
100000 is the improvement of the
property and had forfeited all right to
conveyance under the contract, defend
ant without consideration extended the
term of the contract from time to time
for the purpose of enabling plaintiff to
perfect his arrangements and to sell the
lots according to his plans, by which
he repeatedly stated to defendant that
he expected to make several hundreds
of thousands of dollars.
LENIENCY OF DEFENDANT.
Booth says he forebore the enforce
ment of the payment of interest on the
mortgage for "A year and half, uhtll
the amount due defendant amounted TO
more than $4,000. A letter from defend
ant to plaintiff dated Sept. 10, 1908, Is
quoted in which a bill for interest was
enclosed amounting to $iO57.39 ana
Desky is notified so that he might nave
ample time for preparations, that on
February To- 1904, Booth should be COM
PEELED to insist upon prompt payment
of interest and, in default, to take legal
steps.
Several instances are given in which
defendant yielded to the importantly
of plaintiff, accepting sums Tar below
what the terms of mortgage called foi
TO release lots sold, In regard to
sale made to A. Young, 1t is alleged
plaintiff represented that owing to som'
confusion about area he Was only get
ting ST., 900 down out of the agreed price
of $4,000, yet Booth afterward Learned
that the deed to Young 'recited con
sideration of $4,000 as having been pai'
on that very day that plaintitf toll
this defendant that he received onl,
$4,000" yet defendant had never we
received the balance Of $1,000 promised t
him when the price should De run
paid.
COMPROMISE ACCEPTED.
Another allegation by defendant con
tains a letter he wrote TO PLAINTIFF &C
cepting his proposition that II he raise
the amount due on the mortgage les
$4,000, Booth would forgive him tina
sum OF $4,000 ON account of Desky'
distressed financial condition,
Defendant gives reasons az length I
show that II would be impructicable I
sell lots separately uudor Foreclosure
one being that the water rights Wen
with the whole, tie denies The right e.
plaintiff 90 having the mortgage II
formed
SUSPENDED DIVORCE SUIT
Win spmr appearance OF pussihle rr'
QnCillatiuu hftNvuu tho pHrtlrr, ll
divorce Huil ~ mary -. Hrrirlman
against frauk g., n,rtrlmhn ib Fu|
pended bn March d. Judge no 80