The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-06-15
CAMPBELL WILL
CASE DECIDED
Question of inheritance Be-
tween Late C. L. Carriers
Wife and Children.

1t looks as II the Campbell will con.
struction troubles have been finally
: composed. Judge Robinson's decree
!, no error, in a unanimous opinion of
the Supreme Court, written by Justice
sustaining the demurrers of certain of
the respondents to the latest bill for
Wilder and rendered yesterday.
! Holmes & Stanley represented the
plaintiffs, these being the trustees I'M
der the will of the late James Camp
bell, who brought the suit te, make sure
that they committed no mistake in dis
bursting the income of the very rich es-
tate. Attorneys for the respondents
the wife, children and grandchildren
M. Watson, A. G. M. Robertson, E. C.
Peters and C. F. Peterson. Those for
the wife and children assented to the
prayers of the bill for the most part.
The decision favors the grandchildren,
as it Iengthens the period before the
administration is decreed to have ended
and the trust begun in which the wife
and children were debarred from draw
ing income,
On this occasion the court reaffirms
| it's former opinion constituting the will,
which it appears the trustees did not
feel covered all the dangerous ground
for them. In the former submission
the court rejected the contention that
the paying of income to the children
and widow should date from February
10, 1902, when all of the debts, ex-
penses and legaoies were paid, it also
appearing that the administration was
actually closed and the property order
ed distributeds on July 3, 1905. This
latter is the date now affirmed as the
end of administration and the begin
ming of the trusteeship. A contention
on behalf Of the grandchildren that the
date from which income should be
computed and paid to the life tenants
should be July %, 1905, the date of fill
ing of receipt by the trustees for the
property, is held without merit, ''for
the reason that the testator has made
the date of the decree of distribution
the one to be followed. This is only
loss of twenty-five days to them
against gain of three years and near
ly five months they make over the con-
tention of the other parties. Part of
! the syllabus reads thus:
Where the income of testator's
residuary estate is given to the widow
and children for life and the will pre-
scribes the date of the order of dis
tribution as the time from which such
income should be paid (Which date in
this case was July 8, 1905), the widow
and children are only entitled to in
come which accrues from and after
that date
The will made provision for main
tenance of the widow and children DUR
ing the administration period, and the
income payable under the trust was to
be divided every six months, begin
ming with the children the same time
as with the wife, and their portion
payable to them, share and share alike,
from and after their respective ma
jority or marriage"
BETWEEN MOTHER AND Chill
DREN.
A submission without action has been
made to the Supreme Court by J. o.
Carter, trustee, v. Mary H. S. Davis
and Henry A. 2. Carter and Grace S.
Carter, minors. Plaintiff is trastee
under a quitclaim deed made on March
8, 1879, between Helen Seymour Judd of
the first part and Harriet 3. Judd, and
the executors of the will of the late
DR.. Gerrit 2. Judd, and J. O. Carter,
of the second, third and fourth parts
respectively. conveying all interests in
Sweet Home premises, Honolulu. Late
Iy in a friendly suit, there has been
a partition of the premises in question
between the heirs of the late FL. A. P.
Carter, grandfather of the minors in
this suit, whose father was the late
Charles L. Carter and mother is Mrs.
Davis by a second marriage and the
first-named respondent in this submis-
sion.
There still remains in the hands of
the trustee part OF the premises con-
tanning 1.4S2 acres. and the question
submitted to the court is who, as be-
tween Mary H. S. Davis on the one
hand and Henry A. p. Carter and
Grace S. Carter on the other hand, is
or are entitled to a conveyance from
plaintiff of ten undivided elevenths of
said 1882 acres.
CASE SUBMITTED.
Samuel Noar, administrator of the
estate of Isaac Noar, deceased, V. c.
Bosse was argued and submitted, on
defendants exceptions from First Cir
cult Court, in the Supreme Court yes
terday. With Chief Justice F'rear and
Justice Wilder sat Circuit Judge Lind
say in place of Justice Hartwell, alb