The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-11-13
DEED WAS
FRAUDULENT.
Young Attorney allied
in His Duty as
Notary.

OF I1OludIHd hdOIJud tRdIHSt htiitIIo
Holt and George H. Holt to cancel q
deed 1t is a remarkable case The
petitioner is an elderly Hawaiian
woman, sixty odd years of age, totally
ignorant of the English language and
apparently without any capacity fo1
business matters. Her home for many
years has been at Waimea, Hawaii
Since the death of her husband in 1900
| she has to a great extent been obliged
to depend upon the rent of 80 acres
of land at Lauka, Hawaii, for her sup
port.
Early in February of this year the
| old lazy was induced by Mrs. Holt, who
| is her daughter, to visit her and her
| husband at their home in Honolulu.
While upon this visit and at the home
| of respondents Mrs Kaopua executed
a deed to Kemelia Holt, dated March
| 3, 1906, of the Lauka land and all of
her fright, title and interest in and
to all of the lands wheresoever situate
| formerly belonging to her deceased
| husband j. w. r. Kaopua.'
The grounds relied upon by the petit
| TONER are fraud and mistake. She
commended that in compliance with the
| persuasions of her daughter she did
| consent to convey to her whatever
"possible Interest," she might have in
| the lands owned by her husband at
the time of his death, but that at no
| time was the land at Eauka mention
! ed, nor did she intend to convey this
! land, nor did she know that it was
| included in the deed to Mrs. Holt.
- Petitioner the court saws. ''was
OF IL ~,
| ton of the deed, nor did she know any
thing about it until Mr.. Thayar, coun-
sci for respondents, appeared at their
home with the deed ready to be execut-
ed and acknowledged by her, the deed
having been prepared by Mr.. Thayer
in his office at the request and under
the direction of respondents. Mr..
Thayer read the deed in part and
explained the material portions thereof
in the English language, but of course
this conveyed nothing to the mind
of petitioner. Whatever knowledge she
might obtain as to the deed and its
contents she was obliged to receive
through the Interpretation of the re-
spondents, for she had no Independent
advice nor was it suggested that she
obtain such -
While the court in it's direct refer
ChIC " vi. I'D tI - UlItt,
it quotes authorities that indirectly
convey censure of his conduct as a
notary on this occasion.
Referring to the fact that "Mr.
Thayer, in addition to his duties as
counsel IN the matter, also acted as
notary IN taking the acknowledgment |
of petitioner as to the execution of
the deed, " Judge De Bolt says:
at is an indispensable duty of the |
notary to see that a party executing !
an instrument fully understands it. and |
that he knows its contents and the |
uses and purposes for which it is be- |
ing executed. This course being pur-
sued notary has it in his power to |
Illustrate fraud and to prevent mis- |
takes. Should the services of an in |
terpreter be required, competent and /
impartial person should always be call ;
ed in, not one of those interested in |
the transaction.
''In the case at bar I am unable !
to find from the testimony of respond i
ents and Mr.. Thayer that petitioner
knew and understood the contents of !,
the deed
Facts are quoted to show that the
complainant never intended to convey /
away her source of living, but that be-
ing convinced of the fact she imme- :.
diately took steps to regain her land,
and the decision thus concludes:
'Why should this old woman CON
vey away the last vestige of her prop
erty and thus reduce herself to poverty
and absolute dependence upon others?
Why should she disinherit her other
children, particularly those who make
their home with her and are in a
position, to comfort her declining vears9
The record discloses no reason why she
should do such an unreasonable and
improbable thing.
'tThere is no other conclusion than
that the Lauka land, so far as petition
nr is concerned, was included in the
deed by mistake.
'Viewing it from the standpoint of {
the transaction is I'M ,
considerable and one that equity can
not approve.
1.-The Lauka land should be recon i
Keyed to petitioner f
Decree accordingly.
COURT NOTES.
In the suit of c. J. Dav & Co. vs..
Albert f. Nichols, defendant, and the j
Queens Hospital, garnishee, it is stipu- '
ated that the action may he tried at !
my time after November IS upon two
lays notice by either party.
MarId barete DN hef attorney, w. 4.
Aehl. moves that b. l.. Marx may be g
appointed master in the place of Mr. I
Anderson, who is sick, in the matter
# her petition for admeasurement of '
lower
Judgment for plaintiff was given by
Judge De Bolt in the suit of L. p.
Kerr x Co, Ltd, vs.. Fred. Kaeck, an 8
ppeal from judgment for defendant
With costs by District Magistrate Whit
ley in an action for replevin of Il
ewing machine valued at $50 e
Mrs. Mary lliwaalani moves. in her j
ilvorce suit against Charles niwaa-
ami, for an order to libelee to paw
IL costs of court and $25 counsel fee. 7
Tai Long petitions for probate Of c
he Will of Ching Jam Yen, who left 7
N estate valued at $1l40 to his wife
nd three children.
: 2n.L.- in = IL: II