The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1906-11-12
DE BOLTS RULES
FOR GUIDANCE
OF NO9ARIBS.
THE CIRCUIT JUDGE GIVES IN
TERESTING DECISION THIS
MORNING.

judge De Bolt laid down some pre-
cepts this morning for the guidance of
notaries public while dealing with per-
sons who may be ignorant Of the con-
tents of the documents they are called
upon to sign.
The occasion was a decision i'm the
case Of Honuaiwa Kaopua VS.. Kemela
Holt and George II. Holt, to cancel a
dead. The deed in question was dated
March 8, 1906, and was tor 80 acres of
land at Lauka, Hawaii, and also all
of her right, title and interest in and
to all of the lands wherever situate
formerly belonging to her deceased
husband, ]. w. X. Kaopua.s The land
at Lauka was worth $500. The deed
was made to Kemeia, the daughter of
the petitioner, and the consideration
was love and affection and one dollar
it being deed Of gift.
The decision states that the petition
er is an elderly Hawaiian woman about
60 years of age and a resident of Wal
mea, Hawaii, since the death of her
husband in 1900, she has had to depend
largely upon the rent of the Lauka
she was induced to visit her daughter
and son-in-law at Honolulu where at
the home of the latter the deed in ques-
ton was executed. Fraud and mis-
take We're the grounds relied upon by
the petitioner. She claimed that she
had agreed to deed to her daughter
her possible interest in the lands
owned by her husband at the time of
his death, but that at no time was thC
Lauka land mentioned nor did she in
tend to convey the land or know that
it had been included in the deed to Mrs.
Holt. The respondents at the trial
had maintained the contrary regarding
the Lauka lands. The respondents also
maintained that it was incumbent upon
the petitioner to prove the alleged issue
of fraud and mistake and the court Is
inclined to the opinion that such had
been done by petitioner
In commenting upon the national
feature of the case the decision con-
tinues:
"The circumstances attending the
preparation and execution of the deed
were not such as could be expected to
convey to the mind of the petitioner
very clear understanding of the trans
action.
"Petitioner was not consulted rela-
tive to the preparation of the deed, nor
did she know anything about it until
w. w, Thayer counsel for respondents,
anpeared at their home with the deed
ready to be executed and acknowledged
by her, the deed having been prepared
by Mr.. Thayer in his office at the re-
ouest and under the direction of re-
spondents. Mr.. Thayer read the deco
in part and explained the material por-
lions thereof in the English language
Int of course this conveyed nothing TO
the mind of petitioner. WhateYer
knowledge she might obtain as 20 the
deed and it's contents she was Obliged
70 receive through the Interpretation
of the respondents, for she mad no III,
dependent advice nor was 1t sugseS'eu
] that she obtain such.
"Mr Thayer, in addition to ms uu-
ties az counsel in the matter, also dc.-
ed as notary in taking the ackhoWI-
| odgment of petitioner as TO the eNecu'
ton of the dead. ,,t,
eft is not my purpose nor do WIS"
o. ba understood as Critlclslng MI
Tho var's good intentions in the per
fodrnance Of his duties as notary put
deem it my duty to deal with the IA.
&c find them and to apply 10 ~.
cots fine law as ! understand 1t 10
"a u, this connection I deem 1t prop''
| abser,,e that the duties deVolN"-
man a notary are of the utmost lI''Po.
ta,ca particularly where the party
TT, n, instrument is Ignorant '
rIitarate. or where the party ana Nv
.a,,, do not understand, speak, reau VI
TAI ~ sonoe language. It Is an III
disnensable duty of the NOTARY ~.
that party executing an l'ls'' -
civ, understands it, and thaI ne NJ.
49, oo,tents and and the uses ana pu'
-, Cor which 1t is being eN''u,
This course being pursued notary nv
a. in his power to frustra'e Ir"u" ar
,royent mistakes. Should lhe
,,I,as of an interpreter be require i
aaronetent and impartial person sho I-,,
oIwavs be called in, not one Vi
interested in the TRANSACTION. b,, f,
I'm the case at OAR r,,o,dent,
end from the testimony of respo" ,,aau
and MIR. Thayer that petitioner S" N,
and and understood the contents Oh "
deed"
In conclusion the opinion says
"Why should this old woman con'''
away the last vestige of her propert!
and thus reduce herself to poverty an,
} absolute dependence upon others? VIII,
should she disinherit her other chill
} dren, particularly those who max
their home with her and are in a posi-
tion to comfort her declining years
The record discloses no reason why sh
should do such an unreasonable AM
improbable thing. There is no othe
conclusion than that the Lauka lanC
so far as petitioner is concerned, wa