The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-11-02
BIG PLUMS
DEAL 7 OUT
Fees to the Attorneys
in the GaIbraith
Will Case.

| In nearing the matter or the form OF
| decree in conformity with its decision
in the Galbraith will case, the Supreme
Court awarded fees to counsel in the
case as follows:
To Ballou & Marx and r. B. Ander-
son. attorneys for the trustee. $500.
To Holmes & Stanley. attorneys for
the heirs, $4,000
To Smith & Lewis and c. H. Olson.
attorneys for the executors, $500.
The form of decree as a whole was
taken under considera ton by the court.
THE DECISION.
Justice Hartwell is author of the
unanimous opinion of the Supreme
Court in the case involving the con-
struction of the will of the late George
Galbraith. After paying the debts and
the legacies, the executors had in their
hands personal property in cash and Sc
curities aggregating 1921, HASA not in
Guiding accrued interest The decedent
left real estate in this Territory, now
in possession of Hawaiin Trust Com
pany. trustee. consisting of land at Wa
hiawa under lease for 80 years, from
September II. 1900, at an annual rental
of $4,000. appraised at s125,00 and land
in Honolulu appraised at $500. He left
in Ireland farm. held under an agree
ment to purchase under the Irish land
purchase acts, valued at $685., licensed
premises valued at S940 and a dwelling
time of his death certain personal prop
erty belonging to him in Ireland name
ly, a mortgage for $4,000 upon two
farms and $2350 cash, with solicitors,
in Belfast. He died unmarried without
leaving legitimate children. His heirs,
by the laws of this Territory, are, ac-
cording to the information and belief
of the parties, his sister, Eliza Fitchie, |
who has deceased testate since his
death. and six children of his deceased
brother, Samuel Galbraith, who, with |
the executors of the will of the de-
ceased sister, who are also her heirs |
and next of kin and sole beneficiaries |
under her will, are parties to the sub
mission.
$50, and the controversy arose over the
portions Of the will relative to the resi-
due Of the estate.
The Hawaiian Trust Company, Ltd, |
is named in the will as trustee and di-
$780, all to the beneficiaries for life |
and then to their heirs, excepting three |
named last in the list, "who are to re-
ceive only their life annuities and at
their death all their interests to cease.
On the final ending and distribution of
the trust" the will directs the trust
fund to be divided equally amongst
those persons entitled at that time to
the aforementioned annuities."
One provision of the will was this:
The balance, residue or remainder of
my estate is to be placed in trust for
rs long a period as is legally possible
The termination or ending of said trust
20 take place when the law requires it |
lnder the statute The court holds
hat the ending of the trust shall come
1t the end of twenty-one years after
he death Of the last survivor of the
lnnuitants whose annuities continue to
heir heirs. At that period the trustee
s to divide the trust fund and its ac-
inundated and unapplied income as re-
luired by the will.
Preceding the courts opinion are
Statement of the Case" Contention
f the Heirs" Contention of the Ex-
cutors" Cecil Brown and w. o.
'mith) and Contention of the Trus-
ee-" These documents, with the syl-
abus, occupy a total of sixteen pages,
nd the opinion takes eight pages. In
he body of the opinion a question is
laced far in the future for decision
4 these words:
Whether the trust fund is to go to =
ne heirs of the annuitants proportion r
tely, meaning that the representatives
each annuity take the share of the
md determined by the ratio between
ne annuity and the aggregate sum of
lie annuities, or equally without re- ,
ard to such annuities. are questions
hich cannot be adjudicated now"