The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-03-31

reported loss or
$1,000 upon the bonds of the Union
Iron Works Company of Honolulu,
this sum being deducted left bal
ance of S142,799.04. The accounts
were examined and MIR. Banning
expressed his satisfaction with them,
and that he was ready to receipt for
his share of the estate assets; they
were approved, and the assets OF the
estate ordered distributed equally
between Mrs. Banning and Rudolph,
and the administrator ordered dis
charged upon his filing the receipts.
The receipts were filed forthwith,
and were in the following form:
Received, Honolulu. February
10Th, 1898, from VIM. L. Allen, adj
ministrator of the estate of j. L. q.
Banning, deceased, my one-half OF
the estate as follows: In bonds,
$34, 400; notes secured, S36, ,675; cash,
$324.54; total, ST., ,399.5 amounting
to seventy-one thousand, three hun
dred and ninety-nine and 54-100
dollars. Signed, B. r. BANNING"
The receipt of Mrs. Banning's
share was in the same form and for
the same amounts, but signed by W.
T. Allen as her attorney in fact.
These receipts do not show the
the actual basis of settlement SO far
as the division of securities is con-
cerned, but a manual separation OF
the securities took place Immediately
after the receipts were filed, IN ac-
cordance with a previously arranged
schedule, Mr.. Banning making his
own selection, he receiving $4,000
in bonds and $2S, ,125 in notes, max
ing a total of $68,125. The allot-
ment to Mrs. Banning was $27, 900
in bonds and $45,25 in notes; total,
$72,225. The difference between
these amounts was adjusted between
the parties, but in what way is not
quite clear.
Mr.. Banning gave Mr.. Allen a
power of attorney to act for him in
the care of his half of the estate,
which was dated February 28, 1898.
MIR. Banning left for the Coast
March 20, 1893, intending to be gone
until the fall of that year, but re-
turned by the same steamer, because
he found that his mother was dissat-
isfied with the securities allotted to
her, and after his arrival in Homo
lulu he took steps towards the insti-
tuition of these proceedings.
The original petition to vacate the
order discharging the administrator
was filed May %, 1893, for which
there was substituted an amended
petition filed June 10, 1893. The
amended petition alleged that the
order discharging the administrator
was made under mistake of fact az
to the terms of the will of the de-
ceased, shared alike by the Judge and
the administrator; and that the adj
ministrator had not filed proper ac-
counts, and that the securities in
which the funds of the estate were
invested were speculative, uncertain.
shifting and unsafe, and that the re-
ceipt which had been filed for the
distributive shares were given "under
a misrepresentation of material facts
and conditions, and in consequences
of concealment of material facts and
conditions, and undue influence ex-
ercised" by the administrator. After
the. hearing a decision was rendered
revoking the order of discharge and
requiring che administrator to file
his accounts for approval as of the
18th day OF F'ebruary, 1898. Two
accounts, the sixth AID seventh, were
filed on the 18th Of August, 1898:
the sixth account included the trans
action of the administrator up to
the 10th Of January, 1893. This ac-
count was referred to f. Wunden-
berg as master on the 4th of Sem
tember, 1893. The seventh account
contained a statement of the affairs
of the estate mp to the 3Ist day of
July, 1898.
On the 18th of August, 1893, Mrs.
filed a petition for the re-
moval Of Mr.. Allen as administrator.
and for the appointment of j. A.
Magoon IN his place, setting forth as
reasons the facts alleged in the
petition for the revocation
IF the order discharging the admin.
strator; and also that there was no
oond on file conditioned for the ex-
scution and performance of said
rust. The motion was heard on the
Eth of September, 1898, and denied.
IN the ground that no cause had been
shown for the removal of MIR. Allen.
1 new bond was filed on the 9th dav
If September, 1893, with approved
ureties.
The Masters report was fled on
October 1st, 1893, and the beneiciaries
lied motion to confirm the Masters
epOrt SO far as the items of commits
ion were concerned; and also to have
he Master report upon the pro
)riety of the investments. A deci-
ion was rendered, by which the rule
vas laid down, governing the allow
Ince of commissions, but the motion
o re-refer to the Master was denied
N the ground that the subject of
he enquiry was more properly for
be Court.
The matter is now before the
}ourt on the motion of the benefi
iaries To disallou tho naoona