The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1908-01-03
HELD BY COURT
MAC00N RESIGNS

ministrator. for discharge.
AT the same time the court found
that the status of A. f. Judd, as
guardian of Susan Brash, was not
clear. His ward for some time before
her death was entitled TO her share of
the fire claim award in question, but
it had never been reduced to possession
by the guardian. 1t was very i'm
portant, and the duty of the guardian,
that he should preserve all of the prop
erty in his possession, but the court did
rot see how he could claim as guardian,
after her death. property which he had
not reduced TO cash.
Mr.. Magoon expostulated with the
court, after the decision, saying he
could not do the impossible.
Judge De Bolt did not consider the
collection of the $500 FIRE claim award
an impossibility.
In the afternoon Mr.. Magoon filed
his resignation as administrator, as re-
ported below.
THE COURTS DECISION.
Judge De Bolts decision with re-
gard to Mr.. Magoon's application for
discharge was substantially as follows:
This matter comes before the court
on the motion of Mr.. Patrick Gleason,
as administrator of Susan Brash, de-
ceased, and also the motion of Mrs.
Robson. by her attorney. E. NJ. Watson,
tor with the will annexed Of the estate
of William Brash, deceased, file his
accounts of said estate.
lin response TO which Mr.. Magoon
files the following application as it is
termed''-(the court quotes the appli-
cation of Magoon for diseharge).
1.-The only question, l take it, and
as the evidence clearly tends TO show,
is as to this claim OF $500 awarded by
the Fire Claims Commission. As to the
clerical error described in this case as
that OF J. Brash in the body of the
application. which is signed as VIM.
Brash, take it as wholly immaterial.
1t is mere clerical error and clerical
errors can not harm and should not
harm anyone or vitiate any transae-
tions.
This application is expressed on its
face as informal, not in accordance with
the strict rules OF pleading, but, how
NCA AAdS AC. II -
ent from the instrument itself, as well
as disclosed by the evidence, that it
was an application on behalf of the
Brash estate and for the value OF
property destroyed by fire in the sup
pressing OF bubonic plague in Honolulu
in 1900. And, as l view the matter,
il is wholly immaterial who made the
application or how the application was
made.
The Commissioners were satisfied
that the estate was entitled to an
award and accordingly did make an
award Of $500 for the benefit of the
estate. Therefore the estate then had
a valid claim as evidenced by the judg-
ment and award
This brings US TO the point as 10
whether or not this award can be con
sidered real property or personal prop
erty. We must not overlook the fact
that the claim in the first instance-a
destruction of real roperty-itself
might be deemed real property, and
when that claim is in the form of
Judgment then we must look upon it
as a Judgment, just Is notes given for
rent Of real property are considered
personal property. l consider the
award and the judgment rendered by
the Commissioners In this matter per
sOnal property.
1T being personal property-it be
ing the claim to which the estate was
entitled. 1t seems TO me also clear. and
necessarily following as a legal eOnelu-
sion. that the administrator was bound
TO proceed in the collection OF it.
1.-The fact stated in his application
for discharge, that he never received
any property and never had in his pos
session any property belonging TO the
estate, can not justify his discharge
when it appeared that there was prop
erry. OF q claim. belonging 10 the estate
uneOlleeted.
ut Is the duty OF the administra-
wei as TO preserve the property com
ing into his possession as administra-
tor. and so in this case. upon all the
facts and circumstances disclosed by the
record and BY the testimony, viii be
bound 10 find that this claim was per
sonal property, that il was a claim TO
which the Brash estate was entitled
and that II was the duty OF the ad-
ministrat0r TO proceed 10 collect IL
.'Of course the administrator, as
would be the Sse with anyone else,
Is not obliged 0 do the impossible
II II Is Impossible TO collect this claim,
which, however, has not been disclosed
by the evidence so far. why, he might
he released from further obligation 4"
After referring 10 the status OF Judd
as guardian, the court held II the duty
OF Magoon as administrator 10 reduce
any existing claim Of the estate 10 cash.
Hence he denied the application for
the administrator discharge.
WHY AN IN[POSSIBILITY.
Nh MagoOn, 70 an Advertiser re-
porter outside OF court, explained why
he deemed II impossible 10 collect the
award IN present circumstances. IL vas
that the tenants whose improvements
were destroyed IN the FIRE refused 10
come into ny negotiation for less than
the entire award. They lost buildings
claimed TO have cost $1,000. In other
eases OF divided claims the parties
agreed 10 have the awards collected
and deposited subject 20 adjudication
in the courts Where, as in the Brash
matte. the claimants refused to come
together thus, the Only thing left was
10 bring suit against them
This. Mr. MzgOon points out, would
eest money and he has none 70 throw
away On other people : affairs.