The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-12-30
AN ANSWER
CROSSCUTS
Defendants in Equity
Suit Charge
Fraud.

A joint and several answer has been
fled by defendants in the foreclosure
suit of Lahapa Ernstberger VS.. Kina
Nahau and Nahau. Magoon and Light
foot are attorneys for defendants, who
plead that the mortgage in question
was fully paid They claim that Kina
Nahau is possessed of an undivided
half interest in the land described in
the first paragraph of the bill, by viz
tue of a deed executed and delivered
by G. KaIua Kaioipahia on March 81,
1904, admitting that when the deed
was executed the land was subject to
the mortgage set forth in the second
paragraph of the bill. They admit re-
fusal to pay any amount alleged to be
due in respect of promissory note and
mortgage, denying that there remains
anything unpaid in respect thereof.
It is further stated that Kina was
the aunt of Kaioipahia, who for many
years prior to his death was in feeble
health and nearly blind, and for a
short time before his death was en-
tirely helpless and dependent upon the
nursing of his friends and relatives.
He made his home with Kine at Ho-
naunau, Kona, Hawaii, but for about
a year prior to his death had been
staying in Honolulu with Becky Kaa-
nohi, his niece.
Frequently in his lifetime he made
promises to Kina that she should have
his lands at death. There were feel
ings of great love and affection be-
tween them.
Three days prior to his death Kaioi-
pahia paid a visit to Lahapa Ernst
berger, intending to stay a few days,
and became seriously i'll so that he
could not be moved from Ernstberger g
house. Lahapa, it is declared, was not
related by ties of blood to Kaioipahia
and had no claim on his affection or
bounty.
Defendants are informed and believe
that Lahapa, during the last illness of
Kaioipahia, frequently urged him to
convey to her all his lands. Kaioipa-
hia, during brief intervals of con-
seriousness, at first steadfastly re-
fused to convey his lands to Lahapa,
but fually "being overcome by the
continued opportunities and coercion
of Lahapa, consented to convey por-
ton of his land TO said Lahapa.' A
deed of the land described in the
mortgage was accordingly executed,
Kaioipahia reserving to himself for
life the rents, issues and profits of the
lands. The land conveyed was worth
$4,000 and the deed was executed with
the understanding and agreement on
the part of Lahapa that she would as
sumo the whole of the burden of the
mortgage, and apply the income from
the property to the payment of the
mortgage, or if the land was sold APP
ply the proceeds so far as necessary to
the same purpose.
The deed to Lahapa was dated
March %, 1904, and about July 81,
1905, plaintiff and her husband, Joseph
Ernstberger, for the consideration of
and his mother deed of the same
property. 1t is further alleged that
Lahapa, to procure release of the
mortgage, paid to w. R. Castle the
whole of the principal and interest due
under the mortgage, but with the in
tention of defrauding these defend
ants and seeking to have the whole or
said mortgage Indebtedness made a
lien on the property of these defend
ants, said Lahapa secured from said
Castle an assignment of said mort
gage
Defendants further show that the
value of the land conveyed to Kipa by
G. Kalua Kaioipahia is of the value of
about five hundred dollars.
1t is prayed that defendants be dis
missed, or otherwise that the court
decree. that the deed to plaintiff is
void fer want of consideration and for
duress and undue influence. and that
plaintiff be declared to be the trustee
of the $4,000 received from Luning for
payment of the mortgage, etc. and the
balance to the heirs of Kaioipahia
And, if found that the deed is not
void, that it be decreed that the mort
gage be paid out of the proceeds of
the sale of Luning. Or, in case the
court shall decide not to grant the re-
lief above prayed for, that it shall de-
cree that the land of defendants shall
oe subject to payment of the mortgage
in such proportion as the value of the