The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-03-28
II ms OIlY tn CENTS.
DUr Tine QUESTION INVOLVED AD-
MSSusTMATlo Or ESTATES.
ana r-Reachlng Decisioa-Sep-
arate vsucher~. sueh - Receipts,
Not Liable for Fees for Filtng.

Judge Benson has decided = matter OF
considerable importance to members OF
the bar. and hts decision win result in q
large saving 10 the estates OF decedsnts
and minors IT has been the custom OF
the county clerk to exact fling fee or
10 cents for every voucher flied IN the
probate department by an executor. ad-
nifzstratoa or guardian. whether such
vouchers we're attached 70 and made a
part Of a report IN the nature OF exhibits
or He'd singIy under separate covers 1t
Is customary for officers Occupying a .itlu-
siary or representative capacity To tske
receipts for the expenditure of small and
large sums alike, SO that It may be readi-
~ seen taat under the practice of charg-
ing 10 cents FOR the fling of each receipt
the tax upon small estates has been un-
duly heavy.
The subject came up for adjudication be-
fore Judge Benson last week over the ab-
sectitn OF n n attorney TO pay 30 for the
ming or the report and vouchers of an
administrator. Instead of 10 cents. which
he Claimed was the right charge r1.,on
the refusal of the county clerk to accept
IN cents or TO file the report writ of man
damns WAS applied for.
When The case came mp for hearing, At
rorney G, A. Riddle said ii seemed q
small amount TO invoke the courts aid IN
saving, bur there was principle invoiv-
ed He represented a ward of the court,
and he only asked the proper authority.
IL it was a correct charge, of course, he
would pay it. but Il not he would no, be
doing his duty to the court or the ward
II he paid IT,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Hart ap-
peared for County Clerk Holloway, and
defended the custom as being not only
lawful, but reasonable: and that any
other Interpretation would lead to abuses
and to evasions Of proper fees, because it
would be so difficult to draw the line. He
pointed out that II the fee were not charg-
ed the county would lose a considerable
revenue. Large estates, such a. the Yes-
Ter and Starr estates. have In the past
been obliged to pay from 80 to SloO for
filing single report, with vouchers al
tached
Mr.. Riddle suggested that whole estate
could be eaten up by fees. If he filed a
paper in the case It would cost 10 cents.
For that expenditure he would take a
voucher from the clerk and file 1t. That
filing would cost 10 cents more and he
would get receipt which it would cost
another 10 cents to file, and II he rigid,y
observed the practice Of obtaining .
voucher for every item of expenditure ne
would exhaust the entire estate in paying
for the filing of the first paper in the pro-
ceedings. The only way out OF the diff
Guilty was 10 omit taking receipts from
the county clerk and have the court take
the attorneys word for II. This would be
better than eating up the wards estate,
but ii was not an exact accounting.
Judge Benson sustained the objection
and issued the writ. Reports OF admins
traitors will hereafter cost only 10 cents.
with the vouchers attached. Where a
paper only calls for one filing mark II will
only cost one fee.