The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-07-17

petition to terminate the spendthrift
trust on evidence when it can do so,
and at as early date as possible
PROBATE
Eliza Scott Wilder has petitioned for
the probate of the will of William C.
Wilder. deceased, and it has been or
dered that Monday morning, August
18th, be set for the hearing of such
petition. The petition shows the heirs
to be Gardner K, William c., Charles
T. and Harry A Wilder, sons of the
deceased, and petitioner, widow of de-
ceased, who is named in the, viii as
executrix. 1t is stated that the value
of the estate is unknown. Robertson
& Wilder are attorneys for petitioner.
In the matter of the estate of Eliza
Luce, deceased, Ellen Dore mother OF
Kathleen Monsarratt. Ethel Monsar-
raft and We're Dore, minors, has petl-
toned for her appointment as trustee
for said minors, in place of Thomas
Ray Keyworth, who, it is shown, de-
sires to be released OF the trusteeshlp,
as he wishes to leave the Islands.
Under the will of said Eliza Luce,
each of said children is entitled to
$50 English money, the same to be held
in trust for them until they respect
lively reach the age of uwenty-one
years. This money is now in the pos
session of Thomas Ray Keyworth, as
trustee, and petitioner prays that the
same be, upon her appointment as
trustee, paid over to her to hold in
trust for said minors.
FEDERAL COURT.
The Chinese deportation case of Unit
ed States VS.. Kut Yong, was argued
before Judge Estee yesterday j. J.
Dunno. acting United States attorney.
representing the prosecution. and T.
McCants Stewart conducting the de-
Tense. The argument of counsel occu-
pied the entire day. and was concluded
at p. m. at "aica tit.e the court
took the matter under ;sITisement
Thomas Fitch, late OF Nevada Utah,
Oregon, Washington, California, and
other Pacific slope States and Terfi-
tories, was yesterday admitted to prac-
tice law in the United States District
Court of Hawaii.
The bark c. d. Bryant, IibelIed by
Pearson & Potter, was released by
Deputy United States Marshal Hendry
late yesterday afternoon. upon the fill
ing of $1,000 bonds. The sureties on
the bond filed are II. Shuttle aph F. w.
Macfarlane.
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Decision was given yesterday in the
case of G. B. Wilson VS.. LilIuokalani,
by the Supreme Court, reversing the
decree of the first judge or the First
Circuit Court. which denied the motion
of plaintiff, that he be allowed to file
an amended bill, and dismissed the
bill. dissolving an injunction formerly
granted and adjudging costs to the de-
PENDANT.
This case was suit in equity,
brought by the plaintiff, who claimed
that himself and wife had rendered
valuable services to the defendant, and
that they had not been paid for the
same; that he owned a homestead on
the corner of Young and Piikoi streets,
and that in June, 1895, the same was
advertised for sale under foreclosure
of mortgage; that the defendant volun-
teered to buy the homestead FOR him
at the sale. and that she did SO,
through Cecil Brown, her attorney, the
purchase price being s4400, and the real
value about $500; that the commits
sioners deed and declaration of
trust We're delivered to plaintiff by said
Brown subsequently, and that the de-
PENDANT expressed her satisfaction
with the arrangement, saying that as
soon as plaintiff became financially
able, he might pay the amount ex-
pended, and at any event the property
should always be used and occupied
by the plaintiff and his wife as a home
during the, remainder of their lives;
that afterward j. O. Carter, defen-
dant's attorney in fact, sought a
| fraudulent advantage in regard to the
| property. and by misrepresentation
| persuaded him to give up the title pa
pers; that these papers were subse-
quently turned over to Cecil Brown
who executed a deed to the property
directly to the defendant, who ever
since has claimed to own the property
| free from any claim or trust of the
! plaintiff; that in 1896 plaintiff was d.
rected by the defendant to vacate the
property; that plaintiff offered to pay
| the amount expended as first agreed
| and that ssuch offer was refused, and
| that in August, 1900, the defendant in.
stituted an action in ejectment agains
plaintiff to recover possession of the
property and $1,000 damages; thai
plaintiff cannot interpose his equita biz
defense in a court, and unless the
court will take cognizance of the ac.
ton defendant institutes, he will suffer
| irreparabIe loss and injury
An injunction restraining the defen
dant from selling or leasing the prem
isest pending the hearing, or from pro
ceeding with the ejectment suit. wa:
granted. The defendant demurred t
! the bill on several grounds. and afte
| hearing. the demurrer was sustained
I for want of equity in the bill. TIL
plaintiff then asked and was granted
leave to move to amend the bill, after
wards presenting to the court hi
amended bin with a motion for leav'
to file the same. This amended bill
omitted the allegations relative to tn
wilful deception of Carter, and tn
prayer asked that defendant be de
creed to convey the fee on the receip
of the amount of money expended Il
the purchase of the property. The mo
ton was denied on the ground that tn
bill was a new bill, instead of amend
ed bill, and from this ruling the plain
| tiff appealed
Justice Galbraith, in his opinion says
'The amended bill does not seek {
bring in new parties. The facts relies
upon for relief are much the same, al
though the form of expression is differ
ent. The language is possibly NOR
precise, but the purpose and object i
clearly apparent in the one as In tn
n other, t. e, the protection or preser
kvation of the interest of the plaintiff