The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-01-06


Castle Part of the remandemen seek Cleghorn
account for the and property.
The question in controversy of fact did Cleghorn
pay the funds belonging Castle the request
with the subsequent knowledge and approval of petit
tioner!"
We have made careful of the evidence
arrive at the conclusions the circuit forth in
the decision of Stanley, j., which is follows:
"On June s $685. John Nicholas Ana and Antoine Nicholas
Ana two of the eaes and devsee under the will of Antoine
Phillips deceased upon showing that ~ s. Clegho Esquire
Administrator with the will annexed has filed of his
Administration March 31s 1877 moved this for
order requiring him file his This motion
tested by the Administrator after hearing evidence the court
December 10th, 1898, granted the motion and ordered the
administrator TO file his
On April 1899 the administrator an account showing
that September IS 1886 he had in his hands tho
S352OG9 principal and income of the estate and upon April L.
the gaee and devees above named and KOlek widow of
Antoine Manuel deceased another of the legaee and devsee.
made the notion under consideration, for order equ
ing the administrator pay court said of S3520G9
and interest for their and benefit
This motion is opposed by the administrator who claims in
his above referred September 1856 he paid
this amount of S352069 into the hands Of w T. Castle
Esquire attorney law the request Inc claims Of
above mentioned egatees and devsee movan and
Momona the heenant OF the estate He claims that by this
transfer the administration closed and his liability ended
and that the parties the motion cOpped from recurring
him to them for the property thus transferred
The deny that they authorized requested or
aented to the transfer of the trust by the administrator said
Castle either expressly inereuay and that SUCH transfer
sent and they further deny that they have any time received
part of the property coming to them under tho wiz
On October 18th, 1885, Ana Momona the lfeenant
attorney, the said W. r. Castle pettioned the Supreme Court
for the removal of Mr. Ceghorn administrator The record
shows that appeared prosecute this petition and fur
Their proceedings taken court and the recor shows
Mr. Ceghom discharged but still administrator of
the estate.
During the month Of September 1885, find from tie eyi
dence that the administrator did, forth his trans
fer to Mr. Castle the of $352069, being cash 100000
and certain land belonging the administrator situated Wal
hee, Maui being taken by Mr.. Castle in lieu of $1,000
Some years later Mr. Castle in turn transferred the property
the estate to Antoine Roa attorney law, quasi
am of the opinion that if the administrator could show by
clear and undputabe evidence that the egatee and deye
who moving in this matter requested such transfer
to be made and fully asented it. afterwards ratified the
same they would be eopped demanding an account
ing from the administrator though he had received
his discharge from the The question then 5d these
parties before the authorize consent tho transfer
to Mr. Castle afterwards ratified by hem that it
be held that they cstopped from proceeding further
against the administrator In arriving decision of this que
ton be remembered that the burden of proof upon the
administrator to establish the etopp 1t must beshown upon
preponderance of proof that these parties moving did
authorize the transfer at the time made that they sub
equeny rathed It. Upon careful review OF the evidence
roduced am not satisfied that either the authorization sub
equen ratification of the transfer of the Mr. Castle
by the has been proved by the administrator and
accordingly unable to find that the movant9 eopped in
these proceedings. IN, 49,. s.rt.
The administrator Mr. Cleghon personally had no conmun
cation with the parties interested in the As Mr. Castle
instituted the proceedings against him behalf of the life
tenant he dealt with him Alone and trusted in his doing every
thing that necessary eecuate the termination of his obi
CATION administrator and in fact has always since the date of
the transfer up the institution of the present proceedings
dered that he discharged Mr.. Castle the principal
administrator and it is on his evidence mainly
that the is asked find that these parties stopped
Ills testimony IN my opinion insufficient to Justify the court
arriving such conclusion His recollection of the circum-
stances which surrounded the transfer him in 1886 very
distinct and vague and supply the place of the clear
equvoca evidence of estoppe that the law requires
few extracts from his reported testimony will show
the unrelablty of his evidence He esfes (page.5 STEM
Notes. that the remandermen consented either way to
acknowledgements consented he sate) being paid over
to me or to my handing it Antoine Rosa don't
Der had any anything do with either of them e
that man JOhn Ana) my Office sometime after maid
the thing into the hands of Antoine Rosa as now recoec OF
course he may have there before won't say he did not
Again p y on being asked by Mr. Robertson counsel for the
administrator % As Of fact don't you remember that
the remandermen did consent Mr. Cegho transferring the
property of the estate to you" he answered No. don't The
deed OF the land at Wacc Mr. Castle contained the recital
Whereas parties in interest under said Estate conserving that