The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-12-30
Definite ISSUES JOINED
IN BRASH ESTATE CASE
(Contlnued from Page one.l

Continued from Page One.)
bert F. Judd to Discharge Of Admins
traitor" and the other. Answer OF J.
Alfred Magoon to Motions for Him TO
Account as Administrator.
! The exceptions are:
| First, that Judd lis not the guardian
of the person and property of Susan
Brash. for that the person referred to
as Susan Brash is dead and no one
can be guardian of the dead unless
| forsooth he be the caretaker of a ceme-
terry.
| Second, that Judd has no interest in
the estate of Susan Brash, for at her
death her estate went to her admins
traitor or her heirs.
| Third, that F. T. Thompson of
| Thompson & Clemens, attorneys for
Judd, is precluded from appearing
| against this respondent in that the
motion attacks a proceeding in which
Thompson was attorney for this re-
! spondent Thompson was his attorney
| in making the claim in which the name
| ~. Brash" was enormously used. 1t
/ is admitted by respondent that he
should have carefully read over the
| petition to see that there were no cleri-
f! cal errors in it, but he correctly sign
| ed the name of William Brash to it.
Fourth. that it is not alleged that
the fire claim award was for personal
property and therefore it does not ap-
pear that respondent should have re-
ceived, or accounted for, any money
as administrator. of the estate of VIM.
Brash.
Fifth, in reference to the $4,000 mort
gage, it is said that Judd took it over
after having ample opportunity for
considering the propriety of taking the
mortgage as to the value of the prop
erty. After three years and nine
months Judd alleges that the security
is not altogether satisfactory, but it
is not alleged that the security was
not ample at the time it was taken
by this respondent as guardian of said
Susan Brasil
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:
/. 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.
2. His appointment as such admin
istrator was an incident to his APP
pointment as guardian of Susan Brasi1
merely precautionary matter-and
he never filed a bond nor accounted to
the court as such administrators. "and
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 I
been regularly appointed guardian. a |
period of over eleven years, he acted |
as guardian of Susan Brash, believing |
that the order ofs Chief Justice Judd I
appointing him was valid.
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 apnual account the
master highly commended the system
Of bookkeeping in Magoon's office.
vouchers" the master said, ''are
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
full statement of the condition of the
to Judd.
s. On the same date he delivered TO
Judd the following mortgages to which
Mrs Robson and Patrick Gleason, adj
now object: Mortgage of
H. It. 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
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 s1100, land at
Moiliih of the then value of about
$500 and land at Kamakela of the then
value of about $4,000, and at the time
the mortgage was taken for Susan the
had erected two cottages
and repaired another at an expense of
about $4,000 making the value of the
property securing the loan about $500.
The Kamakela property was then rent
ed at s45 a month and is now rented,
for S24 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