Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1907-12-30
MACON MATTER TO
CAUSE BIG Fight

ed with them, to demonstrate that j.
Alfred Magoon has been exploiting
the estates of William and Susan
Rrash. It is predicted that an effort
will again be made to have Magoon
disbarTed, but whether the trouble
viii go as far as that cannot be stat
cd at present.
The matter took definite legal form
last Saturday when Albert +. Judd,
guardian of Susan Brash, deceased,
by Thompson & Clemens, his attor-
neys, filed an objection to the dis
charge of Magoon as administrator of
the estate of William Brash, deceased.
In answer to this, Magoon filed two
papers, one entitled Exceptions to
Objections of Albert f. Judd to Dis
charge of Administrator" and the
other, Answer of j. Alfred Magoon
to Motions for Him to Account as Ad-
ministrator.
1t will be remembered that the
matter first attained publicity u
short time ago when John Marcal-
limo as master filed a report in which
he accused Magoon of juggling the
securities of the estate and transfer
ring to IL, without having them re-
corded, worthless securities of his
own, together with numerous other
acts which the Master recommended
to the attention of the Court.
Judd's objections to the discharge
of Magoon as administrator are sup
ported by an affidavit by himself, of
which the following is the substance:
Judd is the guardian of Susan
Brash. deceased daughter and legatee
of William Brash, deceased. Susan
Crash is benefcially Interested in the
estate of William Brash, and partiC-
ularly in certain fire claim and
award. On October Z, 1907, Magoon
filed motion for discharge as ad-
ministrator OF William Brash, but he
fled no final accounts, and has filed
no accounts since Sept. Is, 1902.
In court recently, Magoon denied
that he ever received or paid out any
money sof the estate OF William
trash. Afiiant contradicts this state
ment and claims that Magoon did
Iprove u claim before the Fire Claims
Commission, for damages incurred by
the destruction of property of the
estate by the Board OF Health. and
the claim was awarded in 1902 in
the sum of $500. But although it
was his duty to do so, Magoon took
no steps to collect this claim, al
though twice requested to do so ry
Judd as guardian of Susan Brash.
But Magoon has received at least one
Tee of $50 for attending to the col
lection of the claim, although he
never collected 1t.
It is alleged that although Ma
COON managed the estate of Susan
Brash as her guardian, he never filed
a final account as such guardian. Az
ter Judd was appointed guardian OF
Susan Brash in 1904, Magoon turned
ever to him certain property as be-
longing to the estate, which included
certain mortgages, one being Il mort
gage of the Hawaii Land Company
for $1,000, with interest at . pei
cent, dated March 80, 1900, with d
term of two years from that date The
: mortgage was not made out to Susan
l}rash but to j. Alfred Magoon. Ma
COON insisted that the mortgage be-
longed to the estate of Susan Brash
: although it was in his name. JUDD
believes that in his inventory Magoor
made no mention OF such mortgage
: although 1t purported to have beer
executed two years previously. jude
concludes;
THAT said mortgage was and Il
not altogether satisfactory security
for the amount of the debt, not onl!
because of the situation of the lanC
and it's want of marketable quality
hut because of the moral risk and in
sclvency of the mortgagor and Their
being no probable value of def
cheney Judgment on foreclosure, an,
afilant is informed and believes tina
said j. Alfred Magoon was derelict il
his duty as such administrator il
turning over to said account of Susal
Brash the mortgage aforesaid"
Magoon's exceptions to the objeC
lions to his discharge as administra
tor are as follows:
First, that Judd is not the guard
ian of the person and property of Su
san Brash, for that the person refer
red to as Susan Brash is dead ami n
enc can be guardian of the dead un
less forsooth he be the caretaker of
cemetery.
Second, that Judd has no interes
IT, the estate of Susan Brash, for a
her death her estate went to her ad
iministrator or her heirs.
Third, that Il. h. Thompson c
Thompson & Clemens, attorneys ia
Judd, is precluded from appearin
against this respondent in that tn
motion attacks a proceeding in while