The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-08-02

quent to the death of her husoand,
John p. Parker the third your petit
toner was not aware that her SAID
daughter was entitled to any share or
interest in the Parker Ranch or to any
other property through the said John
P Parker the third; That after the
6eath of her husband petitioner resld-
: with Hanai Parker widow of John
p Parker, uncle of said Samuel Par
Eer. who was the father of said John
p. Parker the third, and that she and
er said daughter were supported by
err with assistant from petitioners
fatnc" James I. Dowsett, petitioner
being allowed by said Hanai Parker
the sum of $500 per month as spend
ing money for herself and said daugh-
ter for clothing and for necessaries
outside of board and lodging;
SAM PARKER's DECEIT.
Sixth: That in 1894 petitioners at
tention was called to her daughters
rights in the estate of her father John
P. Parker the third by outside parties
whereupon petitioner referred the mat
ter to her said father who tnereupon
made Investigations and learned that
petitioners daughter was heir to all of
the property devised to the father of
said daughter by John P Parker the
second; and in this connection petition
er says, that the said Samuel Parker
from the date of the death of petition
er's first husband up TO the time petit
ttioner was advised that her daughter
has large property rights under the will
Of John P. Parker the second, never
informed petitioner of any such rights,
49, 4.
neither she nor her said daughter had
acquired any property rights through
her said first husband.
SAM PARKER OPPOSED GUARD
IANSHIP
Seventh: That petitioners father
was first appointed guardian of Annie
Tarker; that after his death petitioner
was so appointed, and later, upon her
request, A. w. Carter was appointed
guardian; that said Samuel Parker
contested the appointment of petition
e1'' IA Their, as such guardian, but with
out success. due to the. opposition of
your petitioner 10 the desires and plans
Of sale Samuel Parker in the premises.
SAM PARKER'S LACK OF INTER-
EST IN ANNIE PARKER.
Tenth: That from the death of petit
ti"I er's first husband to date, Samuel
Parker has taken no steps himself to
foster or care for the interests of your
petitioners said daughter, but that all
steps that have been taken in her be-
half have been initiated or brought
about by petitioner and those acting
in the interests Of her said daughter
anG exclusive Of said Samuel Parker
SAM PARKER'S ExTRAVAGANCE
AND INCAPACITY.
Eleventh: That petitioner fr n her
knowledge of said Samuel Parker has
always favored the management and
control of her daughters property
rights by those income cted with and
Independent of said Samuel Parker, for
petitioner had personal knowledge of
the extravaganza of said Samuel Par
ker and of his inability to manage his
own property affairs in discreet and
prudent manner. Furthermore petit
toner had heard from time to time of
suggestions coming from said Samuel
Parker casting doubt upon the title
of petitioners daughter to the estate
now enjoyed and possessed by her. and
that the foregoing reasons have been
sufficient in petitioners mind to re-
quire her to adopt a policy in the in
terests of her daughter adverse to al
lowing the said Samuel Parker any
control in the Management or direction
of the affairs of her said daughter. al
though petitioner has at the same time
sought to carry out such policy in
way so as to give as little offense as
possible to the said Samuel Parker or
his relatives and friends:
FAITH IN CARTER.
Twelfth: That petitioner asked and
approved the appointment of A. w.
Carter as guardian of her daughters
estate because she believed that the
said A. W. Carter could not and would
not be controlled, guided or influenced
by the said Samuel Parker in the dis
charge of his duties, and was otherwise