The times., 1901-06-29
THE REGISTER MANDAMUsED.
Heirs of the Late james f. Slaughter
Sustained at Law.

Justice Clabaugh yesterday directed
| that a writ of mandamus should issue
against Louis A Dent, in his official ca
pacity as Register of Wills for the Dis
! trict, TO compel him to place on file, as
| of record. certain paper offered by the
heirs of the late James +. Slaughter, pro-
| testing the admission to probate of his
will. From this decision Mr. Dent gave
notice that he will take an appeal to the
Court of Appeals for the District The
| matter came up for hearing on the petit
tion of Mamie Hamilton, Daniel A.
Slaughter, and Edwin Slaughter the next
Of kin of James e. Slaughter, who stated
that in answer to a citation published in
forming them that Julien Castillo Slaugh-
ter had offered the Will of James e.
Slaughter for probate they offered to the
Register of Wills their protest against
the document being admitted to probate.
IL was also stated that the Register re-
fused to receive their protests and make
it a matter of record unless they should
comply with the rule of the Office and
make a deposit as in the case of filing
caveat to a Will.
This the petitioners declined TO do and
there the matter ended for while, or un-
I'll they applied Cor writ of mandamus
to compel the Register to admit the paper
to record without making deposit as in
the case of fling caveat
In the petition it was stated that James
Z. Slaughter died in the City of Mexico
on January last. on March II it was
stated that Julien Castillo Slaughter, OF
Texas. offered the viii of James e.
Slaughter for probate. Eleven days later
the petitioners appeared in the Probate
Court ard offered their answer protesting
against admitting the document to pro-
bate. but the Register refused to accept
it and place il on file.
At the hearing Register Dent was rep
resented by District Attorney Gould and
the petitioners by Henry Il. Davis. II
was Contended by counsel for the petit
TONERS that the rule requiring the deposit
of fee of SI5 in such cases is arbitrary
and without authority of law. The pc
titioners. it was argued, are as defendants
In any legal proceedings and should not
be required to pay costs until the matter
in liquidation should be decided against
them. II had been contended by the Gov
ernment that the taxing of costs in this
way was Wen established and was sane
toned by the justices OF the supreme
Court sitting for probate business.
Against this statement il was argued that
no, justice sitting in the probate branch
OF the Supreme Court of the District has
any authority TO make rules relative TO
the payment Of costs; this, II was claimed,
can only be done by the justices of the
court sitting in general term.
Mr. Gould, on behalf of Mr.. Dent, con-
tended that the rule fixing the fee Sl5,
for the filing of "A caveat was established
by a justice of the Supreme Court of the
District sitting for probate business; the
Justice was of equal power with the court
before which the question was being ar
gued. and he contended that the justices
of the Supreme Court of the District,
having equal power. have no right or au-
thority to review The judicial acts of each
other. Mr.. Gould also argued that the
petition of the heirs of Slaughter Is moth
ing more OF less than a caveat and It's
filing meant the beginning Of a litigation.
This being SO, the parties who take the
Initiative, he claimed. should pay the
costs. as in all other proceedings IN other
branches of the Supreme Court of the
District
No other steps viii be taken in the
matter until after the question has been
decided by the Court Of Appeals for the
District