The Hawaiian gazette., 1907-12-31

/ susan BTdS1.
Sixth, that while said Judd has no
interest in this matter and his inter-
vention is purely impertinent, he is
estopped after three years and nine
months to object to said security
In his answer to the motions on be-
half of Elizabeth Robson and Patrick
Gleason, administrator of the estate
| of Susan Brash. J. Alfred Magoon des-
ignates himself as administrator So
called of the estate of William Brash. .
and submits points as follows, here
much condensed:
! 1. The order appoinging him as adj
ministrator of the estate of VIM.
Brash was void. as there was not at
the time any personal property of the
estate to be administered upon, nor
then or since any money or debts
owing to or by the estate.
I 2 His appointment as such admin
istrator was an incident to his ap-
pointment as guardian of Susan Brash
merely a precautionary matter-and
he never filed a bond nor accounted to
the court as such administrator, land
the allegations of movants that re-
spondent did act as administrator of
the estate of William Brash are false
in every particular"
8. From June s. 1892. when respond
ent was appointed guardian of Susan
/ Brash, to January Is. 1904. when the
! Supreme Court held that he had never
been regularly appointed guardian,
! period of over eleven years, he acted
as guardian of Susan Brash, believing
that the order of Chief Justice Judd
appointing him was valid.
f. 4. During all of said period he reg
ularly filed his accounts as guardian,
which were always carefully scruti-
nized by officers of the court. Report
ing on his, ninth annual account the
master highly commended the system
of bookkeeping in Magoon's office.
Vouchers the master said, 'are
vigorously demanded for every cent
that is paid out. so that there can
never be any dispute as to the amounts
, expended"
5. On March 10. 1904, he turned over
all Susan Brash's property to A. F.
Judd, who had then been appointed
guardian. having previously made a
property to Judd.
6. On the same date he delivered 10
Judd the following mortgages to which
Mrs. Robson and Patrick Gleason, adj
ministrator. now object: Mortgage of
H. T. Walker for $4,000 at per cent,
the value of the property then being
about double the amount of the loan
and the mortgage then and now good
security for the loan. Mortgage of
Hawaii Land Co. for $4,000, as above
mentioned. Interest on this was fully
paid at the time of assignment of
the mortgage to Judd. The mortgage
was secured by land at Kaakapua of
the then value of about s110O, land at
$1,000 and land at Kamakela of the then
value of about $4,000. and at the time
the mortgage was taken for Susan the |
mortgage had erected two cottages |
and repaired another at an expense of !
about $4,000, making the value of the |
property securing the loan about 5000. |
The Kamakela property was then rent |
ed at s45 a month and is now rented |
for s24 a month. Respondent believes
that Hawaii Land Co. was, at the |
time of the taking over of the mort |
gage, wholly solvent.
Z. If the property has deprecated so
as to be insufficient security for the
loans, the respondent submits that it
would be nothing short of an outrage
to hold him responsible. when at the
time the investments were taken with |
the funds of Susan they We're ample |
So Il. -
period of ovef three years and nine
months Judd has not forced payment |
of them nor foreclosed them, but
has taken regularly the interest of 8
and 9 per cent. respectively on the |
loans.
s. The method of presenting fire |
claims was entirely novel. blanks be- !
ing furnished to claimants which could |
not be made to fit the facts in many |
cases, but the Commission was not |
considered to be a court requiring strict |
pleadings and a statement of the |
amount of the claim, the property de- |
stroyed and the name of the claimant |
was all that was really essential.
9. The law partner of respondent |
was then Frank E. Thompson. Re- |
spondent did not fill out the body of |
the petition and does not know who |
did fill it out, but whoever did it made |
the mistake of using j. for w. in the |
initial of the name of Brash. Re-
spondent not noticing the error signed |
the correct abbreviated given name, |
viz, VIM, but anyone who is not |
wiffully blind knows that such an err
ror is not one of substance and is al
ways easily remedied." The claim was
signed Estate VIM. Brash and Susan
BraJh by their attorneys Magoon &
Thompson, Guardian Susan Brasil"
and. the respondent says, though the
form of the signing is well known to
said Judd and E. NJ. Watson. they per-
sist in falsely stating that the respond
ent signed the same as administrator
of the estate of VIM. Brasil"
10. The respondent here repeats the
as above that the admins
tator had nothing to do with claim
based on real estate. TT would be
just as sensible to claim that if the
had dumped some of the
soil from the land on which the build
ing stood into the bay" Magoon
argues, the claim for damages would
thereby become personal property and
would go to the administrator and not