The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1902-07-01
INVESTMENT
OISAPPROVEO
Humphreys Rules
AS to Trust
Funds.
tFrom sanrday,s paIlyl

proved the Investments made by the
guardians OF tie richardson minors
The Investment OF $4,000 in a note OF
The Union Feed co. was not approved
for the reason that +. w. Macfariane
one OF the guardians. has an interest
in the firm. the court not questioning
his integrity in any way. The invest
ment in one Eva plantation bond is
passed for the reason that an appeal
is now pending In the matter OF the
Parker estate IN which similar ques-
tons are involved The investment in
Inter-Island stock IL approved because
It was made by prior guardian. the
$500 being simply the amount which a
re-allotment - stock cost.
Mr. Macfarianc appeared I'm court
yesterday morning when the report of
Master Watson disappearing these va
rious investments was submitted He
stated that he purchased the note for
$1,000 Of the UnioO Feed CO. be ,ause he
thought 1t a good Investment, stating
further that ne had considerable diff
Guilty i'm placing that amount of money,
az the Bank of Hawaii. which held the
. notes. was extremely reluctant ia give
them up. He considered the invest
ment a sound and wise one. but said
he would not have made 1t. had he
known that the law did not permit It.
He said he was entirely willing to take
up the note. as funds could be easily
procured for the purpose, and would
Try TO reIpves: the money belonging to
the ward.N
Judge Humphreys in passing upon the
matter said that the guardians were
interested both in the corporation in
Nbfrh q yponpv had happ ipuaqte6
and In the proper disposition of the
money Of the estate. Consequently
there was likely to arise at some time
a situation where the corporation and
wards interest might conflict, and as
the first duty OF the guardian was to
his ward, he did not wish to see n
guardian placed In such a position
where his action might be questioned.
II was the duty of the court to pro-
tect the ward and this could not be
done by allowing the investment of
trust funds by a guardian in property
in which he was interested. In disal-
lowing the investment Judge Humph-
reys stated that it was the first time
he had disapproved an investment
made by Mr.. Macfarlane and that the
case IN question had never before been
called to his attention, or similar ac-
IlOD WOuiu nave Deen taken IL year ago.
Referring to the Eva bond. the court
said that II was considered gilt edged
investment by the business community
here. but from a legal point of view
the Investment was not one which
could be made with trust funds. Care
full men in the community considered
Eva bonds as a safe and wise invest
ment, but the Judgment of a court
could not be controlled by public opin-
ion. The trust deed showed that a
foreclosure of the property could only
be had upon a majority vote of the
bond holders, and as the guardian did
not own controlling interest the
wards rights were therefore delegated
to n third party not having any inter
est in the protection of her rights, and
over whom the court had no control.
The investment the court said, would
be dsapDroved, II ruling was desired
at this time, but as a similar question
Is now pending in Supreme Court the
matter was passed. Judge Humphreys
stated that II the Supreme Court re-
versed his ruling in the Parker matter
he would approve the investment, and
If he was sustained the investment
would be disapproved when the next
annual accounting il made. Regarding
stock. the court approved it. it appear
ing by the statement of Mr.. Macfar-
lane that he had obtained the stock at
par by pro rata distribution upon an
increase OF capital, the estate already
holding stock in the company. The |
stock at that time had been selling at |
1925 and the court held that this could
mot be treated as an original invest |
nlent by him.
s. c. ALLEN is ENJOINED.
S. C. Allen has been made defendant
in a suit brought in the Circuit Court
by K0olau Kaikainahaole. adminis-
tratrix of the estate of John w. Kali
kIinanao'e, In which she seeks to es-
tablish the fact that the defendant |
who has taken possession of certain |
property belonging to her at Kawaia-
hao, in lieu of the payment of a prom |
issory note secured by a mortgage on |
the property, has no right to do so, |
being barred by the statute of limi- |
tations. 1t seems that her husband ex-
ecuted a note for $500 to Mr.. Allen in |
1895, and gave a mortgage on his prop |
erty to secure the same. None of the /
principal or interest has ever been paid |
In 1897 the husband died intestate, and |
the widow was appointed administra-
trix. She says that she published the |
usual notice to creditors in the Kuokoa,
in which she apprised creditors to pre-
sent to her within six months from the
date of publication their claims against |
said estate. whether such claims were
secured by mortgage or otherwise. and |
she Informed them that claims not 50 /
presented would he forever barred. She |
alleges that the defendant did not pre-
sent his claim, and that the note ma
tured on May 4. 1899. and that more
than'six months have elapsed since the
maturity and the date Of publication |
as Well
The widow says that the defendant |
now claims and pretends that there is /
due him about $4,000 and further claims |