Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-03-04


control and authority over the child.
child on visits 70 Virginia or to Ho-
noluln upon his own decision. and that
he was to have the right not merely
10 visit but to live in the same house
with Mr.. and Mrs. knight when In
San Francisco
Mr.. Cathcart. himself finally told
deponent that Mr. Smart and Mrs.
knight had better not attempt to set
| tie directly again. that Mrs. Knight
has denied to depOnent and Mr.. Smart
that any such accusations against her,
and to the best of her knowledge and
belief against her husband, are true
and has stated that she is prepared
to go through the ordeal OF Mr..
Smartis attack rather than give mp the
child; that she feels that her daugh.
ter and her granddaughter, Elizabeth,
| would both be alive today but for the
carelessness and neglect of Mr.. Smart,
and that she looks upon his deter.
mined and prolonged attempt to drive
the wedge OF distrust between herself
and her husband as simply an at
tempt to reach and destroy one more
vital tie In her family relations. r.
Tried 10 Dig Hp Scandal
That the threats directed as afore-
said against Mrs. knight manifestly
disclose the intention to dig up any
gossip or scandal that eager research
can possibly find, however toothless
with age. and regardless OF the fact
that anything OF the kind in the past,
II true, is too remote to have any pos.
sible bearing upon the propriety of
now leaving this child in the hands OF
Mrs Knight, that Mr.. Smart knows
that this same Mr.. and Mrs. Knight
brought up his wife Thefma beautifully
| and purely, and that there is no reason
Whatsoever why Richard can not be
brought up by them as carefully and
properly; and affiant charges that all
OF these threats have no element of
good faith in them but are resorted to
to ccercs Mrs. knight into accepting
any terms Mr. Smart sees At to inn
pose and in this connection points out
that in the interview In which Mr..
Smart claimed to have possession oil
Infamous charges against both Mr.. and
Mrs. knight he offered almost in the
same breath to put the child in their
possession and custody, and wanted
TO make his own home with them
whenever he was In San Francisco.
Smart Replies.
In the answer filed at Kona yester.
day in Henry uaillard Smart's behalf
Smart asserts among other things that
his late wife was kept in ignorance
of her property rights until she be-
came of age; that within a few days
after she was prevailed upon by her
mother to execute the trust deed OF
the ranch, divesting herself and her
family of legal title to it and of any
residence right on the property.
Smart estimates the value of the
Kona ranch at 81 ,500, 900 to $4,000. 000,.
Under this trust deed, Smart says, his
wife, the rightfuI heir, received only
portion of the income, but Mrs.
Knight, her mother, was to receive an
income of $1,000 q month with certain
provisions which will be fulfilled this
year, raising MIS- Knights income to
$500 d month
He AYERS further that Thelma Par
ker was furthef induced TO deed over.
to her mother the home In San Fran
cisco, valued at $75. 600.
These statements are as follows:
Respondent Els informed and be-
lieves and upon such information and
belief alleges that prior to the com.
ing Of age Of the said Annie T. K.
Parker Smart, she was kept in ig,
Enorance by the said petitioner, Eliza
beth j. Knight, of her property rights
and the extent thereof, and within a
few days after the said Annie 7. K.
Parker Smart became of age the said
petitioner, Elizabeth J. Knight, and
others, secured to be executed deed
Of trust of substantially all of the
property and estate of the said Annie
II. X. Parker Smart consisting almost
entirely OF the ranch and ranch prop
erty situated at Waimea, in the third
judicial circuit of the territory of Ha-
wall, and known as the Parker ranch.
which said ranch and ranch property
has been variously estimated to be oil
the value of from 81 SOC, 900 to $4,000
900. and that under said deed of trust
the said Annie T.. X. Parker Smart
was Invested OF the legal title to the
said ranch and ranch property and
the whole thereof. and was entitled
merely to receive a portion OF the IN
come derived from said ranch and
ranch property during her lifetime.
Deprived OF Property.
s'That under said deed OF trIst the
said Annie T. K. Parker Smart was
not only deprived as aforesaid Of the
legal title to said ranch and ranch
property but said trust deed did not
even reserve or set apart for herself
or for her family any residence or
right Of residence on said ranch prop
erty, and neither said Annie 7. 4.
Parker Smart nor her family had the
right at any time to go upon said
ranch property except upon the con.
sent and sufferance of the trustee
named in said deed Of trust. That
under the terms and conditions of said
deed of trust the said petitioner. Eliz.
abeth j. Knight, was and is entitled to
receive a large income out OF said
= =, -. !, ~, t,,.o7lorfy and IlfldQr