The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-11-25

ed8s'' Of them. These parsons sesm TO have
lntamats relations respecting this estate.
which could not be settled In the ordinary
course Of correspondence. The testimony
g Sonn 4. Davis y another remarkable In
Stance Of want Of knowledge. il not inte9-
r1ty. by 60 who vas paid literally for hia
fidelity y the business OF the deceased. Il
have meyer heard that my brother Erwin
owed him anything" Aqueotion Of veraoity
arises between John A. Davis and Mrs.
Cornue, which will not notice for the view
disturbed. John A. Davis visited the %
called tlleRitimate son in the state Of Iowa
before his return TO Butte, and prior 70 the
hling OF his petition for letters Of admins
tration, and testihes: Erwin and and
several Of us have combined In common
When all the evidence 10 compared, am
forced to draw the following conclusions:
A. ]. Davis, Jr.. asserts claim to personal
property. which prima facie belongs to this
estate and il Of the value Of $685. 200, and
tanned to litiRate his rights in the arat
place are also employed by John A. Davis
in these proceedings. Erwin Davis is in
debted to the estate in the sum Of .S5a6, 900,
and is striving to evade the
p pso1nsx ,d ths,sS th and By bic
Of John A. Davis as the administrator. But
these parties, whose attitude il that Of open
war against the heirs Of this vast estate, are
united in supporting John A. Davis for the
administratorship and in opposing the ap-
plication of Henry A. Root Tor the trust.
The objections to Mr.. Root rest upon the
ground of his non-residence and do mot
affect in any degree his ability or integrity.
The sIo1a boy" did not o4er any festi-
mony in the court below, and i not repre-
sented in this hearing, and the combination
appears to have been entered into without q
just cause. The pretensions Of this child
and the law applicable to him have been
misrepresented by Erwin and John A. Davis
to weaken the confidence of the heirs in
their inheritance and induce tkem TO sacri-
this estate which were in the breasts Of Err.
win and John A. Davis have been revealed
to the relatives. A conspiracy has been
formed by A. J. Davis, Jr.. Erwin Davis and
John A. Davis to defraud the heirs, and the
court below erred In excluding the testi-
tions in furtherance Of its objects. Tho APP
pointment of the respondent % the admin
istrator will enable A. ]. Davis, Jr., and
Erwin Davis TO gain their ends respectively
by collision In the waiver Of the proof Of
material facts OF the confession Of allega-
jury. On the other hand. the selection Of Mr..
Root would be the most efficient mode Of de-
feating the schemes Of A. ]. Davis, Jr., and
Erwin Davis for the spoliation Of this estate.
The argument Of counsel for the respondent
bond conditioned aooordina 70 law does not
remove the danger which has been pointed
out.
In stearns W. Fiske, Is Pick a, Mr..
Justice Wilde % the organ Of the court said:
ut appears that the appellant was very
debtor to the estste to 8 laree amount. and
Who IA charoed vith oombininr virh ca In
testate. in hia lifetime. IA defraud hie cre1.
itors, The appeilant's application for ad-
ministration was made al lis request, and
not to protect OF subserve her own interest.
This influence might and probsbly vouid
be exerted 10 the prejudice 81 the creditors
had the snneliant been ar,nointad adminis,
tratrix, and IL thev minht have 4 rernenv
auainst her on her bond. IL would inorease
the expense Of litigation. for the recovery
auate remedy. and besides. an sdminis.
traitor. If 90 dispoeed. may preiudioe tha in
tareste of those FOR vhoao henefit fra asksNa
is administered. vithout beinc exnosed To
any action"
In Drake ~. Green. 10 Allan 1al. M
3 ~ aGsr n the opinion n ssys: Thus
.S =, may nay have interests conflicting
that ' thesa - vouid ,..cv =, psoI hay
mant in the nrov,ar v,erfornanoa ~ h;e I7rI~
mi0ht Il snffc;ant rssann fnr ras,,.s NY ~
tha indoe 81 nnohsta "a ;n4rn.e S;m ~, -
the DECENTRALIZATION. rs Pntnsv -" ::
Fietcher 11a Nj. OF ~. sc.,.t ".
Gan executor or administrator q d.smnI
unsuitable when he has anv conf, ;ct;ro 49,
sonal interest whioh nrevelts him from ~ ~
inc his officisl dutv. Ia Sac Va R;dIin NO.
maier. Is No. lSS. The CONT ~ NJ Jnstine
Scott ssv: ego. in effect. Adolnh Kshr =.
odministrator Of one estate ia nrosacnt;no 90
suit aoainst Adoiph Kehr. A. sdm;n;strstor
Of another estate. How II The dsfandant,a
estate TO be protected2 K In not Tor Kehr
with the bias on his mind. Ia detarmins
whether IL is indebted or not. That aatste
shouid be defendad bv one Who IT. not s~
interest that It should 90 undefendsd." In
MOODY ~ Moodv. "a ia. EIa' thera 80
contest between two brothers for admin
istration on the estate Of their father ); and
the court in kinr Of one az thann said.
sAnd 20 Of the other faot that Ia wss
claiming for himsen large mart of AZ
estate LETT BY his father. III tbfa vere Arna.
his interest Vac hoetila 70 fha intarast ~