Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-08-15
DUNE FOR CAMPBELLS
CONTINUED from Page ~


which does not become subject to the
will"
The Court thereafter made an order
appointing Geo. 4. Davis, Esq. guard
ian OF the property Of these minors
for the purpose OF protecting their
Interests in the San Jose property, the
Court having according to its then
understanding, the belief Tat the ap.
pointment was satisfactory TO the
mother of the minors, an understand.
ing which has, however, been dispelled
by the subsequent action of the moth
ef.
Mrs. Parker not Consulted.
The motion of Mrs. CampbellParker
for the removal Of the guardian,
among other grounds relied upon the
statement that she had not chosen
the guardian or been consulted in re.
gard to the appointment, but the
guardian having resigned no further
action was taken, and the merits OF
the motion were not passed upon.
On the Goth day Of July a hearing
vas had on the supplemental final
accounts. filed by the executors, and
there being included in the accounts
several items in relation TO the San
Jose property. the several executors
were examined regarding the matter
Sold for Nothing.
Upon that hearing II appeared that
that property in San Jose has been
sold by the Court under the advice
of an attorney in San Jose, Mr., Bird.
While II was sold ostensibly for sl75,'
go TO Miss Alice Campbell, no con.
sideration was in fact paid. Miss
Campbell was decided the property,
however. which deed was duly record.
ed. and then Miss Campbell decided
tine property back TO the truste,N un.
der the will. who are also rhe execu.
tors. Mr.. Cecil Brown. Mr.. J. o. Carter
and Mrs. Abigail Campbell.Parker.
These proceedings were taken be.
lIeye In the best of faith, Mr.. Cecil
Brown testifying that the trustees
acted when they did what they did in
the San Jose property" only for the
purpose of carrying out the intention
CT Mr.. Campbell" but this does not
dispose Of the proposition that their
action. If illegal, is opposed to the in.
terest of the minors and other children
CT James Campbell. It. is apparent
that II the will is void in California
tie children take an interest in fee
simple in that property, while II II
Is brought under the will the fee will
20 10 some heir at present unknown,
The children getting only share OF
the income.
Admit lnvalidity.
While the executors have undoubted.
j. been advised by Mr.. Bird that the
proceedings had were proper. both
Mr.. Brown and Mr.. Carter admit that
the will is void in California. II the
trustees and executors now. contend,
however, as the Court so understands
their contention, that the proceedings
il San Jose are legal and proper and
that the property can legally be made
subject to the trust in the will, il
fellows that their contention Is dia.
metrically opposed TO the interests Of
the children If the Courts conclusion
ia correct and the will be void in Cali
icTnia, for in one case the children
get their share OF the estate and in
the other they get only their share
o. its income. II Is a question OF law,
in the consideration Of which the trus.
tees set up contention adverse to
that OF the rights of the children. as
this Court concludes them to he.
The question then arises as to