The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-03-09
SUPREME COURT HOLDS
MOTLEY WILL IS
VALID

BY majority decision of the Su-
preme Court, written by Chief Justice
Frear and signed by Justice Perry with
the author, the Motley will contest falls
to the ground. The last will and tesla
ment of Charles Motley was admitted
to probate by Judge Little of the
Fourth Circuit. An appeal was taken
TO the Circuit Court and a jury by the
four children of decedent, his widow
electfng to take dover instead of fur
Their contesting the will. Judge Robin
son of the First Circuit went to Hilo
to preside at the trial of the appeal,
and at a certain stage of the trial
granted motion to direct a verdict
for the proponents of the will. An APP
peal from this ruling was taken to the
Supreme Court, with the result already
stated. The ground of contest was that
of undue influence by the decedent's
niece. Mrs. Emma Danford, nee Null
linger.
Following is the story of the will, the
estate being valued at 100000:
TERMS OF WILL.
Mr. Motley had lived on the island
of Hawaii half a century. He success
sively herded sheep, kept a store and
tannery and cultivated sugar cane, and
finally his property became of consid-
cradle value. He early took an Ha-
waiian wife, by whom he had a number
of children, of whom four survived him.
In 1885 he visited England, his native
land, and brought back with him his
niece, Emma Mullinger, then a child of
about thirteen years, whom he brought
up as a daughter. In October, 1898,
Emma married and moved to Honolulu.
The will was executed May IS, 1899; the
first codicil, August 2, 1900, and the
third codicil, April II, 1902. Mr.. Motley
died May 2, 1902.
1.-The will gave $1,000 to a Miss Bar
nard, who had lived at the Motley home
for a time; $500 to the decedents broth
er in England, with a gift of the same
by way of substitution to the brothers
wife and granddaughter successfully;
$500 to Emma Mullinger's father in En-
gland; the homestead, furniture, ETC.,
on Hawaii to decedent's son David;
the proceeds of an insurance policy in
equal shares to his wife, his children,
niece Emma; the residue of the estate
to the executors in trust to pay the in
come thereof in equal parts to the wife,
the said three children and Emma re-
spectively, for their lives, and the
children of the remaining son Charles,
with various provisions by way of sub
stitution, remainders, payment to the
children of Charles upon their arrival
at certain ages, freedom from the con-
troll of their husbands in the cases of
Maria and Emma, etc, and finally, on
the termination of all the life estates,
the corpus was to be divided equally
among the heirs of the three children,
the niece and the children of. the re-
naming son Charles. Thos. r. Walker
and Anthony Lidgate were appointed
executors and trustees. The first codicil
substituted Cecil Brown as executor
and trustee in place of Mr.. Walker,
who had left the Territory, and ex-
pressly confirmed the Will in all other
respects. The second codicil gave the
homestead. furniture, etc, to Emma in
place of David. with q proviso that the
wife should have the use of a cottage
on the premises, with it's furniture, for
life, and expressly confirmed the will in
other respects
LAW EXPOUNDED.
In its syllabus, the decision holds that,
lin deciding the question whether there
is sufficient evidence OF undue influence
in the making of a viii to go to the
jury, the evidence must be considered
in the light most favorable to the con-
testants." Also, there must be both
insufficiency of evidence and absence of
material absence to justify the direction
of verdict for the proponents. In the
body of the decision the Supreme Court
indicates its satisfaction that the court
ha1 Voc CO i,,Sf;6a1