The New York herald., 1876-08-22
THE COURTS
Estate Of Charles M. Barras, Of
Black Crook Fame.
IMPORTANT DECISION BY SURROGATE CALVIN.
The Law Governing Transfers
OF Stock.

In the matter OF the motion confirm the rerort OF
the referee and creditors OF tie late Charles ~ Barras
Of 'Black Crook lame, who was killed by railway
accident Surrogate CALVIN rendered his decision yes
terday. Proceedings were Instituted by washington
Barras, one OF the next OF KIN, for an accounting by
Hiram d. Barras, administrator, aud for the payment
Of petitioners dstrbutve share OF the estate alleging
that eighteen months had elapsed since the granting OF
the letters. Tho adm lnistrator hled his account TO
which numerous objections were interposed, and the
matter was referred to Peter v Burkscl who made
his report dated April 81, 1870 fled May Is following
rho account among other things charged the estate
with travelling expenses, expenses for surety
on administrators bond for the storage OF theatrical
apparel Tor ADVERTISING tecgraphing and the mount
Of clai.n by the administrator on two Obligations OF
the deceased 10 the administrator, portion oil thc
assets consisted OF a pay called the BLACK Crook"
and incurred great deal of expense IN
OF the country of the intcsttc's exclusive
Of the Black Crook" aud warning others against
trespassins his rights. ON The hearing before the
referee and creditors the administrator detailed the
expenses ana the necessity for their being IN
CARED. and gave evidence oi the authority 10 pay
himself two obligations Tor $1,000, purporting to be
signed by the n,estate with interest from the date OF
settlement Several witnesses testified that the sig
nature to the obligations was That oil the intestate the
uny contradictory evidence beng that OF two vii.
nesscs claimed that they heard the admin strator
say that be had OF the clam excepting let
ter; but this denied by the administrator An cx.
pert also tesed that the signatures 10 cerian checks
conceded to be sgned by the dec-ascd were different
from the sigma 10 the Obligation. The reieres IN
his report disallOwcd a number oi the ADMINISTRATORS
charges and the claims on the ground that they were
signed by the intesiae. To- TINS report the ad.
minslrator objected upon various grounds, the most
important. OF which were that the referee
did file his report within sixty days;
tnat he assumed 10 rule upon the admission ci
testimony; that he Gisgowcd necessary
penscs; that the hndings contrary to law
and evidence The exceptions were considered IN de-
tail by Surrogate, VINO decides thar there
limited report OF arciereo that there Is reason
10 doubt that the referee was vested with authority TO
pass upon the questions OF the admissbiltv oi testi
mony tha; II Is mpractcable for this Court 10 pass
VI the question OF necessary charges. The cXcep
ton the disaIiow OF tue cla he holds well
taken H. Giicult to understand how the testimony
OF the competent Ihe Surrogate cOnclu.es
q foows:.l think the report OF tac auditor should
be modified. and as TO the various items OF expense
disalowvd by the referee. am not sufficiently adj
viscd by the papers before me to pass upon the ques
tons more definitely have already done. but If
the administrator Is OF the opinion that injustice has
been done him in these respects he may have new
these questions such reference TO be had
" his expense"