The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-02-13

Courts Stand Between
Her and Fraudulent
Agreement.

| 4 unanimous opinion of the Supreme
| Court. written by Justice Hartwell
protects a native woman named Ant
Keone from being done out of hel
| homestead through an agreement tC
partition land which she was induced
to sign under false representations.
An equity suit against her TO compel
the specific performance of the agree
ment mentioned was brought by James
Armstrong and L. L. McCandless.
Judge De Bolt dismissed the bill and
the plaintiffs appealed from his decree,
but only to have it affirmed by the Su-
preme Court in an opinion of which
the following is the syllabus:
"A bill to enforce performance of a
written agreement to partition land was
dismissed because of it's unfairness and
of the defendants apparent mistake as
to its contents. Held: The decree is
affirmed, the evidence justifving
finding that the written agreement
sought to be enforced did not conform
to the oral agreement or to the de-
in failing to provide that the land APP
portioned to her should be that on
which her house stood"
w. C. Achi represented the plaintiffs,
and r. W. Breckons the defendant in
the appellate court. A statement of the
case in the body of the opinion quotes
the agreement as to the mode of diVi-
sion. the land in question being in two
parcels, and goes on to say:
The bill ayers that the plaintiffs
had brought suit for partition of one
of the pieces but, on the strength of
the agreement of November %, 1905,
withdrew it and engaged surveyor
who surveyed the land December 4, 1905,
and the next day engaged attorneys
who prepared the partition papers
which, on the afternoon of that day,
the defendant notified them that she
would not sign.
The answer denies that the surveyor
was employed to make a survey in ac-
with any agreement between
the parties and AYERS that the instruc-
ions given him were not in accord
lnce with the division agreed upon,
Which, as averred, were that the first
piece should be so divided that the |
defendant would have a portion con-
include certain buildings and improve |
nents erected thereon by her of the |
yalue of $1,000 that the plaintiffs re- |
iuced to writing what they represent |
ID to the defendant to be the oral con- |
ract; that the defendant is a COM I
,aratively ignorant Hawaiian woman
With little or no knowledge of business,
lightly acquainted with the English
anguage and wholly unable to read
t. having no acquaintance with the
erms used in describing boundaries of
and; that each of the plaintiffs is a
shreWd business man.
thoroughly acquainted with the Eng
sh language and that they assured |
err that the written agreement secured |
er the house lot, buildings and i'm
rovements thereon, and that the
greement, which was in English, was
OF read and explained to her; that re-
ring upon this assurance she execut-
i the agreement in full belief that it
acured to her what had been orally
greed upon; that soon after the sur
eyor laid out the lines for the division r
5 outlined in the written contract the
afendant learned to her great sur
rise that the written contract gave |
er a piece of land 75x100 feet which |
no improvements and was
orth not more than 500, and gave
e plaintiffs a piece of land four times
great and which included the build
gs and improvements, being worth
IT less than $500, whereupon she re- c
sed to execute the deed averring v
at the written contract was abso- I
tely unfair, one-sided, unjust and o
that in entering into it | e
e defendant was overreached by the
init 1T 1
ined the execution of the agreement u
sharp and INSCRIPTIONS methods L
which she would receive for her E
are of one of the parcels 1900 square s.
1T wholly unimproved and the plain Il
is 1914 square feet containing the If
proVements of the value of $1,000 | G
ected and paid for by the defendant | rt
d worth not less than $1,000, and that ST
? plaintiffs would receive 1928 of the II
Ter parcel in
fhe Supreme Court, in finding that et
Z testimony supported the defend | e.
is allegations of having been mis- 81
, adds that the disadvantage to 70
iich she was put by the written &c
reement was far from being COM tn
1sated by the plaintiffs agreement Sc
pay costs (about 500 in their parti-
n case, which they discontinued the 70
NeSoi lee teZo-oU), their own attor- ce
s fee, which the defendant was in ce
way responsible for, and $50 for the &C
endant's attorney TT;
me result OF a partition suit would ma
re been far better for the defend
:, as the judge might of his own -
ton have directed a surveyor to set ~
irt for her in one lot an equal pOr-
1 on which her house should stand
an equal portion on the other lot
? expense of this would have been
considerable The plaintiffs offer
allow the defendant to remove her
se. which by the written agreement gre
I'D be left on the division line is for
enough in view of the evidence mo
t it would have to be removed to
ess desirable loca ton" -
ou- rea