The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-05
REDUCED THE ALLOWANCE
R. c. Goodspeed Will Not Be
Permitted to Spend $3.50
a Month.
Judge Ccffay Decides That the Estates
of Minors Must Be Con.
served.

R. G. Goodspeed's application for $3.50 q
| month as family allowance for the support
of his two minor Oh ildren received very
severe shock yesterday, when Judge Cot
fey decided that he should have not more
than $50 month for that purpose, to be
paid only as the estate of their deceased
mother could readily supply the money.
Samuel NJ. Shortridge, attorney for the
executor of the will of Mrs. Goodspeed,
opposed the allowance of $3.50 month for
the support of the two young children, on
the ground that it is the natural and legal
duty of father to support his minor chill
dren, without recourse to the children s
estate. This estate, Mr.. Shortridge con-
tended, must be husbanded and be deliv-
cred to them on their attaining their ma
jority. This is the accepted rule where
the father has sufficient resources to prop
erly maintain the children and nothing can
be taken from their estate except when the
father is shown to be without means. To
support his position Mr.. Shortridge cited
| authorities from the English courts and
from several courts of highest adjudica-
| ture in the United States.
In the present case the testimony
showed that Mr.. Goodspeed, who is the
legally appointed guardian of his own
children, has fixed income sufficient for
the support of himself and bis children,
and further that he had paid SIPS a mont tn
for their support for several years before
his wife's death, such payment being
made by order of the court which granted
divorce to Mrs. Goodspeed.
Attorney c. f. Hanlon, also speaking for
the executor of Mrs. Goodspeed's will, in
timated that it would be wasteiul to al
low Mr.. Goodspeed to handle SO much
oh ybof Ill
necessary for the support of the children.
The testimony showed that Mr.. Goodspeed
is inclined to favor the cause of the older
children VINO are contesting the will of
Mrs. Goodspeed. That contest, if success
| full would decrease the interest of the
minor children in the estate of their
mother. 1t would be unfair to these
minors to have surplus funds put in the
| hands of their. father, when the same
would be employed to injure their own
| interests.
According to Mr.. Heggerty's idea, the
| supplying of funds for the support of sur
viving children is one of the most sacred
and imperative duties of mother estate.
He objected to the casting of aspersions
on the motives OF his client, Mr.. Good
| speed.
Mr.. Shortridge declared that no asper-
| sions were cast on that gentleman's mo-
tives. The only thing suggested by his
associate was reference to the testimony
which disclosed that Mr.. Goodspeed was
| inclined to support hiselder children, and
would not stand by his minor children in
the contest of the will.
| Judge Coffey made a suggestion that
under The decree of divorce Mr. Good
| speed was called for to contribute to a
fund for the support of the minor children.
Mr.. Heggerty thought divorce ends
with the death OF either of the parties
thereto, but Judge Coffey replied that the
| Supreme Court had expressed different
view; that the conditions provided by the
decree of divorce remain in force until
modified by a court of competent jurisdic-
| ton. The court supposes that the fund
contemplated by the divorce decree is be-
| ing piled up somewhere, but the question
here is the present care of the children.
! Judge Coffey said that the position
| touching the duty and responsibility Of
the father to care for his children was cor
rect. Mr.. Goodspeed had expressed q
willingness to contribute his share for the
maintenance of these minors, and it ap-
peared that he was able to pay $50 q
month. This might be sufficient to pro-
vide them with the bare necessaries Of
| life, but in view of the condition of life Of
| these children they are entitled to more
| than meager support. 1t was therefore
ordered that $50 q month should be H.
! lowed to the children from the estate, in
addition to the $50 month which the
| father had agreed TO contribute.
This disposition of the matter appeared
to please all parties to the discu ssion, il
being stated that the money should be
| paid at the convenience OF the executor Of
| Mrs. Goodspeed's estate.