The Hawaiian gazette., 1885-11-17
Opirion d cIaneeNor I'D.


This is bill in equity by the widow Of th'
late James Woods, to compel the defendants
as executors and trustees of tho estate o
Woods, to pay the sum of 81, 9Os.35, amount.
paid, aud liabilities alleged to have been in
Cured by plaintiff from the time Of the deceas,
of Mr.. Woods TO 18th December, 1884.
The bill alleges that plaintiff had, during
this period, the custody Of the persons Of the
minor children, and was allowed by the exec
utors to remain in charge Of the homestead al
Kohala, Hawaii, and that she made purchases
aud incurred liabilities for the proper clothing
and maintenance Of the minors, in supplies for
the household, and in making alterations in
the house on the premises, which had been
projected by her husband, in his lifetime, and
which was done with the knowledge and con-
sent of one Of the executors. The equity Of
the bill is founded upon the principle Of avoid
ing circuiiy Of action and multiplicity Of
suits.
The position of the defendants is, that it
was agreed and understood between them and
plaintiff, that she should be paid reasonable
allowance for the proper maintenance of the
minors. but that plaintiff has made many un-
necessary, useless, improper and extravagant
purchases, and they have already paid her a
reasonable allowance for the support OF the
minors, amply sufficient to cover all reasonable
and necessary expenses, and they never agreed
to become liable for such expenditures as she
should make, etc.
1t is not commended that the specific articles
which were purchased by plaintiff, and which
she seeks TO have paid by defendants, are in
themselves improper. They are mainly foT
clothing for the minors, and for food consumed
in the household. But that during the period
when these purchases were made, an excessive
and extravagant amount was expended. This
l find to be true. By the summary submitted,
Mrs. Wood expended for support Of her chill
dren at the homestead, from. November 18th,
1883, to November 29th, 1881, the sum Of
81, 99s. IL, or at the rate OF Sil6.5l per month,
exclusive Of bills for board and education for
children not at the homestead. For six months
Of 1885, for the same purpose, there was ex-
pended under governes, at the rate of S232.26
per month. If the amount now in contention
be added Ia the expenses for 1854, il would
bring the cost Of supporting the children 10
nearly 5000 per month, winch do moi hesitate
TO say is an extrav1gant amount.
But the executors allowed her to remain at
the house. 10 provide for the household, and
fur some months paid all orders and bills that
were presented, charging them up 10 the estate
aud leaving their superintendent 10 the debit
Of The widow or the minors for future ad Just
ment. In previO1sliearinE in this estate these
amounts were apportioned, and Mrs. Woods
was charged with her share, which was de-
Quoted from her allowance for dover. The
executors were aware that expenditures were
being made, and liabilities incurred at All ex-
iravangat rate,out Of proportion TO The income
ti the estate OF Mr.. Woods, but the amount
WAS not known to them. Mrs. WuOtls says she
was not aware of the condition of the estate,
nor was she limited in tho amount which she
was authorized to expend. A letter rrom Mr..
Davies, 9th April, 1854, urged economy upon
her, and the necessity of naming a regular
amount with which to keep the children and
the house, aud asking, "If you think 500 per
month besides the wages for men, will be
enough. will write 10 Mr. Burchardt, 1.-THE
ranch k-keeper and cashier) but il should
he a regular amount, as he must have defiDite
instructions. Mrs. Woods made no reply TO
this. Mr.. Davies endeavored to reach a def
mite settlement through Mr.. Parker, plaintiffs |
brother, but was unsuccessful, and thus affairs |
ran on until December, 1854, when Mrs. Woods |
marriage aud removal to Honolulu necessitated |
her release Of the control of the household.
What is the duty of the Court in respect to |
these claims?
The amount is far in excess of what was |
necessary and proper for the maintenance of |
the minors, and the Court shoald guard their |
property from spoilation. But the right of the |
creditors must be considered. Mrs. Woods |
was left with general authority to contract for
supplies and clothing. Mr.. Davies letter in
dicates this. He says "tbe clothing and |
pocket money had better come through YOU"
1t was quite within the power of the executors
. put definite limit to the amount which
Mrs. Woods was authorized TO expend. In
Woods part was suspected, it was the execu
tors duty 10 stop it, either by Withdrawing all
credit, aud providing her with only sufficient |
ready money, or by naming stated sum per
month, which they would be responsible for,
aud warning her that airy amount over this
would not be paid. Mrs. Woods was not one
Of the executors or trustees; but the defendants
wore, and were responsible for the expendi-
lures. They attempted to delegate their au-
thority in this respect to her BY so dong
they have now estopped themselves from OBJ |
lecting 10 the amounts.
think the prayer Of the bill should be |
granted. Let the claims be referred to Mr.. |
Henry Smith, Deputy Clerk for computation.
and on the coming in Of his report final de-
cree will be made.
f. N. Hatch for plaintiff; Kinney g. Peterson
for defendants.
Honolulu, Sept. 29th, 1885.