Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-02-22
THREE GASES DECIDED
AN AUCTIONEER'S FEE
IS DECLARED EXCESSIVE
Queen DOwager Kapiolani'S Collector
Has Claim DisallOwed 49,
Potency Of Decree Of
Divorce.

Chief Justice Frear is author of an
opinion of the Supreme Court on a
question of fees in the case of Schlief
VS.. Clark. Judge Gear had allowed
the commissioner $500, the auctioneer
s114S.2O, counsel $3.50, each of the two
guardians $3.50, besides costs of adver-
Using, costs of court, etc. It appears
that two abortive sales had been held
by the auctioneer before sale that
the court could approve. The Supreme
Court says:
1T is contended first that as the
Judge appointed the commissioner to
make the sale and the commissioner to
employed the auctioneer, the latter's
fees should be paid by the commission
er out Of his fee, and not come out of
the fund. The Judge confirmed the ac-
ton of the commissioner in engaging
the services of the auctioneer II he did
not previously authorize II, and he
did in fact directly authorize the auc-
tioneer to conduct at least one sale,
private one that was set aside. More
over in the final order he merely au-
thorized the commissioner to pay the
auctioneers fee. After all, it is i'm
material whether the Judge allowed
the fee directly to the auctioneer or
combined the two fees in the commiE-
sioner's fee, leaving the latter to set
tie with the auctioneer. The question
OF Importance is that of the amount.
1T is considered by the appellees
that the amount is not appealable as
that Is a matter Within the discretion
Of the trial Judge. It is true thatmuch
allowance must be made for the dis
erection OF the Judge. Fees in matters
OF this kind often depend largely as to
their amount on oral statements OF
counsel and on the knowledge that the
Judge has OF the whole course Of the
proceedings. Still when the amount
is clearly excessive this court may al
ter II on appeal Estate of Alma, Is
Haw., $3.50. In our opinion the amount
was clearly excessive in this instance.
| The commissioners fee may be sus-
tanned as within sound discretion, but
that of the auctioneer should, in our
\ opinion. not exceed $3.50. We cannot
approve the practice of allowing eX-
travagant fees out of the estate of 9TH
ers.
so much OF the decree as allows q
fee OF s1l4S.2O to be paid to the auc.
tioneer is set aside and the case is re.
manded to the Circuit Judge for fur.
Their proceedings in conformity with
the foregoing views"
Justice Perry is writer Of the opinion
OF the Supreme Court deciding the cas-,
oil, Kapiolani Estate VS.. l.. X. Puahi
It was an action brought originally b.
enjoin the prosecution, brought by tn
defendant In this case for commission
for collecting the sum Of Sal, 4S4.73 foI
Kapiolani. The defendant was EN-
ployed by complainant to collect he
rents, pay her servants and general!
to attend to her domestic affairs. II
1896 defendant was discharged ant
then brought suit claiming commits
sions on collections. The court allow
ed her SS4.O5 upon making a prope
settlement of all accounts, and an in
junction was issued restraining Puah
from further prosecution OF the suit
The appeal is taken on the ground tina
the lower court has no jurisdiction
The Supreme Court holds that the Cir
cult Courts had jurisdiction prior L
the PRONUNCIATION Of the constitution
OF 1894, in these matters, therefore sus
tains the decision OF the Circuit Court.
Judge Little is sustained by the Su
preme Court in his decision refusing
divorce in the case OF Richard T. Rick
ard VS.. Keahonue Richard. The cour
holds that 1t cannot set aside divorc
decree upon the showing made. TIL
court says: 1T is well settled IN thi
jurisdiction that the finds OF couI
in a divorce case is entitled to tn
same weight as the verdict OF a jury.