The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-03-28
.ASHFORD'S
CAR RIDE
Rapid Transit CO.
Is Adjudged
Wrong.
Cation Is INDICATED In
Fowler Plow
Cases.
The Supreme Court Expresses It's
Views on Estate
Wreckins.

WICthiuSs
Besides the four tax cases decided as
elsewhere. reported, the Supreme Court
| yesterday handed down FIVE interesting
decisions All nine decisions are unan-
imous, though in different cases the
court was variously constituted owing
| to Disqualification of regular mem
| bers.
To the public, probably the Ashford
Rapid Transit decision win be most
| interesting of the bunch of cases re-
ported below.
PASsENGER'S RIGHTS SUSTAINED
Clarence W. Ashford is given judg-
ment against Honolulu Rapid Transit
& Land Co., for statutory damages on
account of his being hauled to defend
ants barn in trailer instead of hav-
ing his demand complied with for
seat in motor car to his destination
when the crew was detaching the trail
er from the motor car. The judgment
of the Honolulu District Court for de-
PENDANT is reversed and the case IS
remanded to the District Magistrate
of Honolulu with directions to enter
ND Judgment for plaintiff and for such
further proceedings as may be proper
not inconsistent with this opinion. JUS
tice Wilder is author of the opinion,
in which the court says: st IS I'M
necessary to decide whether the rule
with reference to steam railroads, that
passenger is entitled to seat as a
matter OF right, is applicable to this
street railroad company. Plaintiff
in person; Castle & Wilmington for de-
PENDANT.
ESTATE WRECKING DISCUSSED.
Justice Wilder writes the unanimous
opinion of the regularly constituted
court in the case of MeIe K. Motley VS..
Cecil Brown and others, affirming the
decree of the Fourth Circuit Court and
nnding, in the syllabus:
Expenses of administration should
be deducted before widow dover Is
apportioned out of her husbands per
sonal estate undef Revised Laws, Sec.
2271.
Expenses, if reasonable, incurred
by executors in proceedings to con-
test will of decedent are expenses of
administration.
In the body of the opinion the court
says;
son this point we would say, how
ever. that estates of decedents should
be protected and conserved for the
benefit of all concerned and not slaugh-
tered or wrecked And it is the duty
of the courts before whom these es-
tates come for settlement or review to
see that they are protected IN every
instance irrespective of whether any
objection is made by any interested
party OF not. The practice of regard
ing estates coming before courts for
review or settlement to be the legiti-
mate prey of all who come IN contact
Herewith should never for one moment
be tolerated in this Territory"
Kinney, McCIanahan q cooper 1ol
plaintiff appellant; Holmes Stanley
for respondent-appellees.
Exceptions from First Circuit Court
are overruled in the case of Cecil
Brown VS.. Kate Braymer, where d.
rected verdict was given for plain
tiff. The suit was on a note for $3.50
and interest, the note having been ac-
cidentally burned. 1t is found in eff
feet that there was such note, that
it was never paid and that the proof
of its destruction was clear enough.
Chief Justice Frear is author of the
opinion, Justice Hartwell and Judge
De Bolt signing with him. W. A.
Whiting with plaintiff; G. a. Davis for
defendant.