The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-01-18
No PERJURY
WAS PROVED
Keaho's Will Affirmed
--Other Probate
Matters.

A unanimous opinion of the Supreme
Court, written by Justice Wilder. af-
| firms a decree of Judge Robinson dis
| missing a petition to revoke the pro-
bate of the will of Keaho, a native
woman, on the ground of forgery. S.
H. Derby appeared for petitioners, and
c. F. Peterson for respondents.
1t was three years after the will was
| probated before this suit was brought
| were four of the ave children of testa-
trix and the revocation was contested
by the husband, sole devisee under the
will and the fifth child It was claim
ed by petitioners that the will was a
forgery for the reasons that, though
the testatrix could not write, the will
showed that her name was written
that the evidence tended to show she
was unconscious at the time the will
was alleged to have been signed, and
that the will was antedated one day.
That the property was all devised to
the husband of the testatrix to the
exclusion of all the children, who We're
all of age, the court holds under the
circumstances a perfectly natural dis
position to make of the property
adding:
Petitioners put in all the evidence
taken a the time the will was pro-
bated. They now claim that it was
offered merely to show on what testi-
mony the VIII was probated. But,
whatever the purpose was of Offering
such testimony, the effect was that
a prima facie case was made out in
favor of the will, which the petitioners
had to meet and overcome
After reviewing the evidence the
court gives the main grounds of its
decision as follows:
I'm the face of the positive testi-
mony given at the probate Of the will
we can not say that the trial judge
erred in holding that the petitioners
did not overcome the prima facie case
thus made out in favor of the WILL |
The same judge heard both the petit |
ton for probate and the petition to |
revoke the probate, and this is an i'm |
portant factor, because he was in a |
better position than anyone else to |
judge of the truth or falsity of the |
testimony given by the various wit |
nesses. Although the record does not |
specifically state the reasons of the |
judge for dismissing the petition, yet |
it is apparent that he could not have
believed all of the testimony given
for the petitioners. We can not hold
that the trial judge erred in his con-
although it is not necessary
to go as far as the case of Estate of
HaW. 1, which held
that the same amount of proof should |
be demanded in support of a petition
to revoke the probate of a will as
would be required to convict the par
ties implicated upon a criminal prose-
cution for forgery"
OTHER PROBATE MATTERS.
Judge Lindsay approved the account
and ordered the discharge of E. A
Mott-Smith, administrator of the es-
ate of Anna Kittelsen Jack, deceased, |
n which he asked to be allowed $165.30
md charged himself with $495.14.
David Dayton, administrator of the
estate of the late Louis Adler, has |
lied a supplementary account, with
eceipts Of $2874.S9 and payments of
~ 90 making a balance of $2S32. SO.
Thos. c. Mcclure, administrator of 4
he estate of George F. Carsley, de-
eased, has filed an inventory show
ng: real estate, none; $7525, from pur- ]
'eyor of Queens hospital, being cash
ound on person of deceased; $3.50,
rom First National Bank of Hawaii
eing proceeds of a draft drawn by I
national bank in Boston in favor of
which was found on his per-
on; two shares of Mutual Rubber :
co. No. l, of Boston, Mass, 7
alue unknown. L
The account of ]. NJ. Dowsett. eX- e
cutor of the will of H. NJ. Stillman,
rom March, 1905, to January Is, 1906, | /:
"a approved by Judge Lindsay. Re o
eipts were 1922. 80 and payments $349.-
3, making a balance of $27.23 due the
xecutor. An inventory shows the
alue of the estate to be $4,000, of
,hich $4,000 represents a house and lot
n School street and the rest securi-
es.