The Hawaiian gazette., 1873-08-13
suPreuae Court.-In Isunco.


rfso.zSnll and othes-lH Equity.
DECISION or TBE ooUKT DELIVERED BY ALLEN. c. }.
The compliments allege in their bill
that they are natives Of, and residents in
China, and that one of them, Wei See,
was the mother Of Achu, who was domi-
oiled in Honolulu, but died in China in
1865. and that the other, Ching See, was
the lawful wife Of said Achu; that the
said Achu had no issue, and that COM
plainauts are the heirs at law of said
Achu.
1t Is alleged further that on the 18th
day Of January, 1865, he made a specific
VIII Of a portion of his estate, at Homo
lula, leaving the balance undisposed of.
bv which he devised to Kamaka, a native
woman. $500 and his dwelling-house
premises, real estate at Waikiki, and all
ms furniture, to be held by her during her
natural life. and after her death to 90 TO
her so-called adopted daughter Kalauka-
pa Young Sheong and Along were APP
pointed Executors.
The compliments allege that at the
tine Of making said will, Achu was pos
sessed Of personal property to the value
Of about $4,000, and that he gave
letter Of instructions to Young Sheong
and Along in relation to the disposition
Of his property; that the Executors
should have held the residue of complain
ants property in trust for compliments,
the heirs at law; and there is an allega-
ton Of fraud against the Executors.
It Is further alleged that the will was
admitted to probate Nov. 10, 1865, by
Young Sbeong, and that Young Sheong
fled false inventory on the 26th June,
1869, which amounts to S6,62l.G5 only,
and that on the 25th Of May, 1869, Young
Sheong fled his petition for a settlement
Of his accounts and the discharge of the
Executors that the final hearing was
had on the 29th of June, 1869, and that
their account exhibited balance of as
sets Of s7.32l65, which was S4,77s.35
less than should have been exhibited, and
that on that day the accounts were passed
and the Executors discharged; that about
$500 OF the claims were Illegal, and
should not have been paid from the assets
Of the estate; that Kamaka and Edwin
II Boyd were appointed guardians of
said kalaukapu on the I'd day of July,
1863; that on TIE same day distribution
was made Of the remainder of the estate
between Kamaka and Kalaukapu, as fol-
lows: to Kamaka, one-third, or 81, 924.ol,
and 10 Kaiaukapu, two-thirds, or 3d.
$500, which sums were paid; that the
residue Of the estate by law descended to
the heirs at law. and that the said Execu-
tors held said property in trust for them,
and thai they are entitled to the same:
that the compliments were residents
in China, and had no notice of said dis
tribution; that said Executors acted
fraudulently, and well knew that the
compliments were heirs at law of the
said Aehu, and that they fraudulently
concealed these facts from the Court and
permitted an unlawful distribution to be
made, and pray that the same be set aside
and the respondents be compelled to pay to
the compliments the residue of the es-
tate, after paying legacies, just debts and
costs.
Along. in his answer, states that he
: .. i of 4ba
time. and that all the transactions relative
70 the estate transpired during his absence
in China, and that he never took upon
himself the executorship of the will, nor
received any of the moneys.
1t Is admitted by the counsel for the
parties that Achu's domicile was in Hon
olulu, and it is an admitted principle that
the distribution must be made according
10 the law of his domicile. and it is equally
well settled that Court of Chancery has
jurisdiction TO decree an account and dis
tribution Of testate's or intestate's es-
tate, on the application of legatees or
next of kin Mason, Harvey VS.. Rich
ards, $50; John, c. r., 2O9.
Its well settled principle in respect
10 these proceedings in Chancery for the
distribution of common fund, that par
ties in interest may claim distribution,
and an absent party who had no notice of
the proceedings and not guilty of willful
laches or inexcusable neglect, will not be
concluded by the decree of distribution
from the assertion of his rights by bill
against the executors or administrators,
or in case they have distributed the funds
in pursuance OF an order of the Court,
against the distributes. There was no
laches on the part of the complainants,
for they were doubtless misled as to their
rights by the conduct of Young Sheongs
mode Of administering on the estate. His
course was wholly illegal. His inventory
was incorrect, and his coneealment of kin
dred abroad from the knowledge of the
Court was wanting in good faith. His
payment of money to the complainants