The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1874-05-13

Ell nothing for her own maintenance, during the
time Immediately subsequent TO her husbands
decease.
The de,esseds father likewise paid in.......... . @
The land hss beea said above brought sls ~
The debt spa it ~ss has been said bef-e . 75S %
Aud the o0sts elaizei i selling IL were - 20
s955 %
So the widow gave up the land, which was
considered by The money lender, as it appears
correctly, TO be sufficient security for the debt,
and then gave up her little fund Of So to pay
these enormous costs.
II such costs were necessary, in order to pro-
cure the sale OF the land, 1t certainly would have
been much better for the woman to have taken
the $1,000 which her father-in-law owed her hus-
band and paid Levers Il DIckson's account Of
$3.50 and let the mortgage enter into posse :
sion Of the land, and DO with IL as be might
see ft she would thus have saved for her own
use. the S7225 which she had in her own hands
and the $3.50 which would have remained out Of
the sum paid by her ialher-in-law. This certain
y would have been for the widow a much better
mode OF administration.
The account drawn up III little different or.
der from that in which it Is presented would
stand thas:
Cr
Czsh t-oa Msika's father --...-.. - %
CNst trOu the wia1w -.-----.--.----- - sS
Dr. aoF
ca.h PAD dss.s sasrs E no-ssge On ;s %
g. 60 -. I, p-.u-.1. y
Advertising notice O. c-edito-s there being only one,
fr SlS55 in addition to thss secured y u0sage 80
S755 8
Credit broushssorw'-a ............... SoS >
Cd tx registry oi issl e Re land ap5
LEASE q 111-i-uge vbicl the vs91~ v.auIa
uh-tlsr it Va released I'M
der Tie c-cumstHuces g' thi, casc--.--..- go
Aduiinissratars commissions ..-.. .Sal 50
Eees as lawyer far his iegal services. s. 01
carnuissigas and expense Or uu,sioasgr in
sails q The lSud. .-.--. 6 :
II The Court had to review the whole account
it Is q matter Of doubt whether they would allow
the anctoDeers commissions in this case. They
wouli allow some remuneration for an aseiioneer
ia case the estate appeared 10 be benefited BY
his eKe5iions bat the statute allows the admins
traitor himself to SCI, Al public auction; and 1t is
most certainly his duty 10 make all preparations
for sale, such as preparing descriptions Of land,
examining title aud making abstract Of it, max
ing the deeds, collecting. and 6nally paying out
the money One would think that !, would be
very easy to make bargain with the sac;io0eer
to CRY the estate" even If bis services should
appear 10 Be at all necessary.
1t IS dificali to see why two commssio0s
should be paid, more especially when the statute
commission paid to the administrator is so large
as 1t Is. By cur statute.
Certainly the administrator did not receive at
any tine the gross sum which the iaud brought,
but received 1t less the $3.50 charged for auc
uoneer's commissions and expenses, so there
Is no reason why he should receive a commission
OF SSS7 on that sum. Bat We do not think our
selyes called upon TO review items not broaghi
up on sPpeai.
The Co1rt would allow professional charges for
services rendered 10 the estate il all cases where
such services are necessary; ard would allow
them to the administrator if be should be 4 law
yer, whensoever they would allow them to
an administrator who Is not lawyer. With
regard TO such allowances every case must stand
by itself and 20 Fixed and invsrisble rule can be
laid down.
Bat in this cass it Is apparent that the admin
istratiou vas snd could be OF no benefit to the
widow, who mast pay these fees, If the credit
ers applied TO COUNSEL for advice they should
pay thsir oEn counsel fees,
II The widow applied, she should have been
advised as set forth above; or TO offer creditors
10 JOIN in the sale; or 70 allow the mortgage TO
be foreclosei; and thus avoid these excessive
commissions; aud in case that foreclosure had
been resorted to, the residuum, il there shOald
have been any, might have been paid into Court
TO await her further action.
The counseIs fees cannot therefore be allowed
in this case The administrator may be diseharg-
ed aad his bond caucelled, uheaever be shah far
nish the receipt Of the widow for the SAID sum Of
5000 and pay the costs Of this appeal.
5. B. Dole, Administrator, appellant
ELISHA H. ALIEN,
CHAs C. HkRRIS
A FKAScIs JUDD.
HOnolulu, April 2sth, 1874.