Year: 1862

morality of giving consideration to witness to in
duce him to tell the truth 1t is corruption itself;
and the man who would receive money to tell the
truth, would receive money to tell a falsehood, and
there could be no reliance upon his testimony in
either case Mr. Montgomery has always sustained
an honorable position at the bar, and the Court do
not believe that he would seriously entertain or ad
wise client to entertain proposition of this cha
racter. The honor of the Bar must be sustained by
an upright practice or the course of legal nvesga-
ton will be liable to be impure and dangerous to the
rights of parties. Should case be made out of a
violation of this principle it would be the imperative
duty of the Court to strike the of the offender
from the Roll. The evidence of the counsel for re-
spOndent is not material, any further than it bears
on the testimony of Mr.. Davis. Even had he made
different statements of the conversation with Vim
cent, he sustained Vincent in Court, under OATH
The statement out of Court should not have weight
against his statement under oath, far as it con-
fcts with Vincent 1t would cast a shade over his
own testimony, but would not in the least affect Mr.
Vincent. although, said before do not perceive
any such discrepancies would inyalidate the testi-
mony of either The difference arose from a misin-
terpretation of the extent force of his remarks
But on this account the testimony of Mr.. Vincent
should not be weakened. When a witness has stated
what another witness has said, and in Court under
oath, gives denial to such statement, or a different
version of it, it should be received with very little
credit, and it cannot affect unfavoraby the testimony
of the other. In view of the testimony given by all
the counsel the Court is unable perceive that it
lessons in any degree the weight to which the test
mony of Mr.. Vincent is legitmately entitled. His
credibility is in degree impaired by it, Much of
this testimony would have been excluded, had ex-
ceptions been taken it but it admitted in con-
formity with the wishes of counsel of respondent
and in the of Mr. Davis of the respondent him.
self.


The respondent was invited to visit this country,
and he arrived here IN 1866, the 22d year of his
age; and it appears by his answer that he had been
educated the art of shipbuilding as well as hav-
ing general business qualifications, and with suf-
tcient means at his command to establish himself
independently of compliments patronage. 1t is in
evidence that on his arrival, the complainant fur
nished him with the necessary clothing proper for
the climate and it is alleged in the BILL and not de-
nied that the complainant paid the respondents pas
sage from England. There is evidence that he
had any to establish himself in the business of
a shipwrght.


Respondent states. in his answer that he does not
know what consideration Vincent paid for said pro-
perty, but believes it to have been SS000 stated
in the Deed, and that said was bona fde paid by
said Vincent to, and received by the ompainant in
consideration of the sale of the Puuloa Estate by the
said Vincent to complainant.


He further says that he does not know whether the
Deed from Vincent to him was executed at the re-
quest of complainant.


1t is very clear that his arrival the respondent
regarded Puuoa as complainant's estate; and VIM
cent testifes that for year and half he had
often expressed the wish to reconvey the estate to
complainant, but the title remained in him till the
arrival ofrespondent and Isaac then said to him,
after introducing his BROTHER Z" will take the
DEED of the land, and in preparing the Deed insert
my brothers name in place of my own. He had no
negotiation with the respondent about the estate.'
1t appears, under his own hand, that he regarded
the Puuloa Estate as his brothers, his arrival;
and is it in the nature of things that the respondent,
coming here at the invitation of his brother, and
his expense, and Immediately entering in aid of his
brother the management of the estate that he did
not know something of the nature of his brothers.
interest: If he regarded Vincent as the owner in
fact he must have been struck with the sngularity
Of the interview detailed by Vincent. 1t was a
very summary mode of negotiation, certainly. On
the hypothesis that Vincent the owner. and he
the purchaser, and especially when he found that
he could make the purchase six, twelve and eight
teen months without an advance payment. 1t is not
an ordinary event, that stranger, on the first in
PRODUCTION, purchase large and productive estate
| on time, without a money payment The weight of
evidence IS that the respondent arrived here without
MEANS and did he expect to produce from the estate
the amount of purchase money to meet the payments
they became due if so, it would seem that Vincent
sold the estate for what it would produce six twelve
and eighteen months, and if it not an extraordi-
nary estate, III its productions, paying largely be-
vond expenses it does not appear how the respon-
| dent to make his payments, which excited no
soicitude the part of Vincent. On the arrival of
| the respondent, the complainant managing the
estate, without interference from Vincent, and had
been for year and a half


In view of the history of the whole Transaction and
|
relationship of the parties there be a doubt that
| the respondent had been informed, and knew that
the estate belonged the complainant and that Vim
| cent was ready to convey 1t request;


! The respondent further answers that he believes
the furniture the property of Vincent, because
the complainant never made any claim for it. Vim
testies that he owned the furniture, and
there is not a doubt from the evidence that it
/ purchased by the complainant. II the respondent
regarded the furniture as Nincent's it is somewhat
singular that he could have used it for than
years. for is in evidence that valuable with
being informed of the ncorrectness of the opin-


ion. 1t appears that tor years the parties were not
on good terms, and therefore, for Of friend
| ship he could not have believed that Vincent left
the furniture for his for this long period 1t must
have appeared to the respondent exhibiting the
same spirit OF generous accommodation the origi-
nal transaction OF the sale OF the estate to him.
| In examining the Deed as detailed in the bill it
appears that the Habendum is in these words ''To
have and to hold the above-deserbed property unto
the said Daniel Montgomery, his heirs and assigns,
forever, Ike myself noU hold the same,
and subject u all mortgages liens and encumbrances
now existing on said estate. whether the same may
have been created by myself or by other person..
/ If the respondent regarded Vincent the owner,
and his business in obtaining this conveyance was
with him, and him alone, why did he not ask him to
| 9 We him list of the mortgages liens and other en-
| eumbrances on the estate There CONVERSE
ton about the title the eneumbrances he had i'm
upon it. and yet he gives his notes and mort
gage AS $4,000 tor quiz claim Deed, with the ad
dition unusual provision. that he was to hold
| it in like MANNER as Vincent held it.


1t appears ne enters upon the management OF the


tate and finds thereon quantity Of goods for trade
which he devotes to the use the business for Of
which the complainant paid for after the respondent
arrived and is also proved that he purchased goods
and lumber afterwards, which he paid for, and which
were used for the benefit of the business the estate


He conducted the business far using the property
on the estate the if all the property personal
| and rea his own. il he was managing the
business for the while it does not appear from
his that he had any title any Of the personal
property, excepting what he acquired by virtue of an
auction sale of some cattle arnnnntinr 10 Sl4h an