The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-01-01
HELD BY COURT
MACON RESIGNS
Judge De Bolt Rules ne oash'
to Collect Brash Estate
Claim.

St04bfs
Judge De Bolt, at the conclusion Oh
tho Rrasb estate hearing, denied the
ann,ieation of j. Alfred Magoon' ao-
ministrator, for discharge.
AT the same time the court fouho
+bo+ the status of A. F. Judd, as
canadian of Susan Brash, was not
clear His ward for some time oetofe
her aeath was entitled to her share OF
tbe, fire claim award in question, put
y had never been reduced TO possession
by the guardian. 1t was very I'M
nortant. and the duty of the GUARDIAN
that he sbould preserve all of the prop
erty in his possession, but the court qua
NOT see how he could claim as GUARDIAN
after her death, property which ne had
not reduced to cash.
Mr.. Magoon expostulated with the
court. after the decision, saying ne
could mot do the impossible.
Judge De Bolt did not consider the
collection of the $500 fire claim award
an impossibility.
In the afternoon Mr.. Magoon nleo
his resignation as administrator, as re-
ported below.
THE COURTS DECISION.
Jndoe De Bolts decision with re-
card to Mr.. Magoon s application for
discharge was substantially as follows:
.sThis matter comes before the court
an the motion of Mr. Patrick Gleason,
as administrator of Susan Brasn, de-
ceased and also the motion OF MRS.
Robson, by her attorney, E. Nj. watson,
asking that Mr.. Magoon, as admlnlstra-
+or with the will annexed of the estate
of William Brash, deceased, lie ms
accounts of said estate.
SIN response to which Mr.. Magoon
, flies the following application as 1t is
termed''-Cthe court quotes the appil-
cation of Magoon for discharge).
ssThe only question, | take II, anu
as the evidence clearly tends to show,
= ia as RI this claim of $500 awarded by
: the Fl e Claims Commission AS TO the
y y clerical error described in this case as
: that of J. Brash in the body OF the
= application, which is signed as VIM
- Rrash I take it as wholly lmmaterlal
- Jt is a mere clerical error and clerlea
" errors can not harm and should mol
harm anyone or vitiate any transac'
y tions. --.-z,-
s.This applications expressed on it
]. face as informal, not in accordance witt
nj the strict rules OF pleading, but, how
+ ever that may be, it is clearly appar
ent from the instrument itself, as wei
as disclosed by the evidence, that /
I was an application on behalf of thu
Brash estate and for the value o.
property destroyed by fire in the sup
pressing of bubonic plague in Honolulu
in 1900. And, as / view the matter
it is wholly immaterial who made tn
Implication or how the application wa
>. made.
nThe Commissioners were satIsfle'
that the estate was entitled TO al
20 award and accordingly did make al
award of $500 for the benefit OF tn
| estate Therefore the estate then ha'
a valid claim as evidenced by the judg
ment and award.
81 "This brings us to the point as t
whether or not this award can be con
sidered real property or personal prop
erty. We must not overlook the FAC
- that the claim in the first instance
destruction of real property
IS might be deemed real property, an
or when that claim is in the form of
NJ Judgment then we must look upon
nj as a Judgment, just as notes given 10
al rent of real property are consldere
~ personal property. ] consider tn
:, award and the judgment rendered b
the Commissioners in this matter pei
sonal property.
n cit being personal property-1t be
ing the claim to which the estate wa
ID entitled, it seems to me also clear, an
necessarily following as legal conclt
a. sion, that the administrator was oonn
to proceed in the collection of 1t.
u. 1.-THE fact stated in his alplleatIo
er for discharge, that he never receive
any property and never had IN ms POI 10
an session any property belonging to tt
estate. can not Justify his dischars
when it appeared, that there was pro-
ertv. or claim, belonging to the esta
uncollected.
ait is the duty of the administri
tor to collect claims of the estate
well as to preserve the property con
ING into his possession as admlnlstr
W tor, and so in this case, upon all q
facts and circumstances disclosed by Il
record and by the testimony, / will
bound to find that this claim was pc
en- sonal property, that it was claim
which the Brash estate was entltl
ace and that it was the duty of the
ministrator to proceed to collect It,
. .'Of course the administrator,
would be the case with anyone ell
is not obliged to do the 1mposslb
If it is impossible to collect this clan
which, however, has not been disclos
mr. BY the evidence so far, why, he mig
can be released from further obligation
n After referring to the status of Ju
our as guardian, the court held 1t the du
,,ns of Magoon as administrator to redu
,hts any existing claim of the estate to ca
Hence he denied the application
the administrator IS discharge
kea WHY AN IMPOSSIBILITY.