The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-08-25
IuIED must Pr
INTEREST on MONEY
Used by Him as Ex-
ecutor of the Lag
arus Estate.
OPINION BY JUDGE HUMPHREY.
THE AMOUNT OF THE PRIEcI-
PAL WAS OVER FOUR THOU
SAND DOLLARS.
No Reflection Upon the Integrity
of the Executor-It Is Simply
q Natter Of the
OPINION BY JUDGE HUMPHREYS.

Judge humphreys udS AeAoS.NN 80,
oral decision in the matter of .he estate
of Joseph Lazarus, deceased. The
court says:
IF there was no minor interested in
this estate, the persons who hare
reached their majority being now pres
ent in court offering no objection 10 the
confirmation of the report OF the mas
ter and to the approval of the accounts.
l would order the report Of the master
to be confirmed and that the accounts
as presented and amended by the mas
ter's report be confirmed; but there
being a minor interested in this case,
il is the duty of this court, by virtue CT
its Office as chancellor, to protect the
interest of the minor despite the fact
that the minor is represented in court
by a person who has reached his ma
jority, to-wit, the guardian. The min
or's rights cannot even be concluded
by the consent of the guardian.
1T appears that at the time of the
death of Lazarus among assets of his
estate there was cash in the bank Of
Bishop & Co. amounting in round num-
bers to $4,000, and that that money
was checked out by the executor OF tue
estate, John S. Walker, in October,
1897. The purpose for which it was
checked out by Mr.. Walker has not
been explained. 1t has not been shown
that il was checked out for any neces-
sary or useful purpose of the state and
the presumption of the court, in the
absence of any explanation, is that il
was checked out by Mr.. Walker for his
personal use as a temporary loan 10
himself. He had this money in his pos
session, subject to his control, subject
to his disposition, until October, 1898
when he used it in paying the iegacles
provided by the will. l think under
the circumstances Mr.. Walker should
be charged with interest on the sum
Oh $t,OUU, Vi ~udlCNSl ~ CSlSC SUN
there was in Bishop & Co.'S bank
checked out by him, for one year,
charged with interest on that sum for
one year at the rate Of s per ceIt,
which was the current rate of interest
here at that time. l think it is the
duty Of the court to charge not the
statutory rate of per cent under the
circumstances, but the current rate OF
interest, which is what he would have
had to pay to some banking house d
private individual if he had obtained
the loan on first class security.
LAS to the sale Of the stocks: The
sale by an executor who has unlimited
power under the will is largely mat
ter of speculation; there are great
many people who did not sell stock a
year ago and regret it; and there ara
great many who if they sold today
perhaps would regret it year from
now.
These are matters of speculation
matters purely problematicai in their
nature, which the court does not wish
to go into.
1T appears that the executor had on
hand this money in the bank and the
ayails of the stock, in all something
like $4,000, to pay $1,000 in legacies.
The amount of cash on hand that he
had, then, was not largely dispropor-
tionate to the amount that he would
have to actually pay out.
I'VE all know that in the selling OF
stock. which is usually held in BLOCKS
that it is sometimes preferable TO sell
it in blocks than TO break il up The
ten shares of paid stock were sold in a
block. and so the other shares were
was any abuse of discretion in the dis
position of these stocks under the very
large discretion and powers given &c
executors under the law with reference
TO the disposition of personal prop
erty.
Il do not think It is unreasonable tc
allow the master fee of 800. and
viii require the executor to pay thai
| fee and IL viii be deducted from com.
missions in this matter. That beins
done the report will stand approved
with these amendments. The master:
report will stand confirmed and tbs
| accounts approved as amended by thi:
decision of the court and the execution
discharged from filing the receipts.
1T is extremely doubtful in my mind
as 10 whether or not under the circum.
stances should allow this executor
any attorneys fee at all. There is ne
reflection. upon the integrity of the ex
ecutor: 1t is simply a matter OF law
and the court Is controlled by the Law
In this matter: it does not impute T.
Mr.. Walker any wrongful motive u
any want Of integrity. 1t is simply
matter whether the court allows
mas .er's fee and no attorneys fee
split the difference by allowing him 4,
attorney fee of SO and charge him viii