The Republican journal., 1908-07-30
Supreme Judicial Court


WALDO SIS.
| SEPTEH Der TERM, A. ID. 1908.
Herbert T. Drake. petitioner. for leave TO ente
| an appeal from the decree of Judge of Probate
| allowing the first account and the private accoun
| of Charles Z. Park, administrator of the estate
of Henry S. PARK deceased.
| RESPECTFULLY REPRESENTS Herbert T
| Drake of Brockton in the County OF Plymouth
| and Commonwealth OF Massachusetts; that he il
| interested creditor in the estate of Henry 5
Park, late Of Stockton springs, in said county o
Waldo, deceased, of viii III said estate the Pro
bate Court in and for said County Of Waldo, ha
now jurisdiction; that at Probate Court held a
tenth day of March, A. ID. 1858 by decree of the
Judge of said Probate Court, then and there
! made the first account. and the private account
| of Charles Z. Park, administrator of the estate
! of Henry 5. Park, was allowed, copy of which
| said administrators first account and of said ad
ministratnr's private account is hereunto annex
ed and mai keu .'fXhlbl; A.
That YOUR petitioner is aggrieyed by said de-
cree Of said Probate Court, for the following rea
/ sons, to wit
for five handred and thirty -four (S534 dollars al
! legged in said administrator first account TO have
been paid by said administrator for last sick
ness services is eXorbilant and was known by
| SAID administrator to be eXorbltant, and should
not haye been paid by said administrator nor al
| lowed by said Probate Court.
/ ?. Because the services of said WIN. G. New
ton sitiring the last sickness of Henry = Park de-
ceased. were OF the value OF only about three
hundred $500 dollars, and the bill therefor was
!
in said account to have been pad by him In order
that said administrator might retain for his own
persona benefit the difference between said sum
of S554 and the sum actually paid to said Newton
in settlement of his SAID bill, the amount whereof
is to your petitioner unknown
3. Because said administrator did not actually
pay to SAID Dr. m. {. Newton the sum OF 1854
as stated IN SAID administrator first account and
allowed by said Probate Court
4, Because said Dr. VIM. c. Newton by pre-
arrangement between HIM and said admlniStra-
/ estate
discounted fl ON his said bill of S53i or repaid 10
said administrator for said administrators per-
Sunal benefit a part of said sum OF 1854, which
said sum discounted as aforesaid, said admins
TRAITOR has retained for his personal benefit with
out right and in fraud OF the creditors and all
other persons interested in said estate.
s. because the bill of said DR.. |, p. Park for
"last sickness services amounting to S536, al
legged il said administrators first account to have
been paid said Dr. l, +. Park is eXorbitant and
was Known to said administrator to have been
exorbitant and should not have!been paid by SAID
administrator, nor allowed by said l'r9bate Court
6. Because the last sickness services" OF said
Dr. | p Park for said deceased. Henry S. Park.
| were of little or no value, and the bill thereof
was placed at $685. alleged by said administrator
to have bee. paid by him to said Dr. Z. l. PARK. III
order to allow said administrator TO pretend that
he had paid said sum OF 1886 to said DE-, L. T.
Park, but in fact to retain greater part II not
all of saiu sum- for his own personal benefit with.
out right and III fraud of the creditors and all
other persons Interested i'll said estate.
I. Because said adminlstr tor did not actual
l.
in settlement of his bill for last sickness ser
vices" as stated in said account and allowed in
said Probate Court. ..,..- .........
s. Because said Df. |. T. Park by prearrangga1,
| ment between HIM and said administrator and IN
fraud OF the cre'!itors, and all other persons IN
terested in sntu estate, repaid to said admln!Sla
tor for the personal benefit of said administrator
Charles c. Park, large part of 81 { sum OF S536,
alleged bv said administrator in said first account
20 have been paid by said administrator to SAID
Dr.. l. p, Park.
9. Because said yeti'ioner is informed and be-
iieyes and 1ter, E'fformation and belief alleges
that sad aIs,,inTStrato did not actually pay to
Sald DE, I. 2. Park the sum OF $50 30 tor medl-
clnes, et., rs stated in sad first account and al
loves ~ said Probate Court, and II he dlu so
Actra;y pay said sum said |. L. Park repaid 10
.safa administrator a large part of said sum OF
$50 by Encouragement ana IN iraua vi lhe
Eigbts OF the creditors of SAID estate.
10. Because said petitioner is informed and
believes and upon information and belief alleges
that said administration did not actually pay TO
said 7. {. D0lllyer the sum OF Sll0 Tor ''DoatdMR
etc. during last sickness, as stated IN SAD ttlst
account ana allowed 10y said Probate Court, Dut
the contrary paid to said T. G. Deliver II any
thing, much less sum than sad sum OF SllG,of II
said administrator paid TIE full amount 81 Sllo as
stated in said first account said i. G. DolilFei re-
paid to said administrator tor the personal Dtne-
tit of said administrator and i" fraud OF tne
creditors of said estate a large part OF sala sum
OF Sll0, the amount whereof Is to your petltiohef
unknown,
II. Because the personal account of said ad-
MnlStr:ttOr Charles Z. Iitlk. against Tile estate
of Henry &, Park 10 the amount OF S5,396.2S, WAS
allowed by said PROBATE 'onr!s
~ .,eca.tf IL salo private account of said ad
mnsla.of }ne said Probate Court allowed to
s sdlu lnhistrator said administrators bill for
oos no OF SAID decea ed fs"m July 30 1895 TO June
I, l9V5 253 weeks, 1t the rate OF SIS 90 per week
amounting te *F63. upon which sum was credited
Septemhes ty, 1906, S2S, claimed to have Heee
pala ts9FNSn by sad deceased, of which sad
atfc77'f large part Ttleleof was barred by the
JlmIt3tipFlS. should
allowed by said Probate Court.
49, fecause said petitioner is informed and be-
HeVeS and upon information and belief alleges
that said administrator has not actually paid to
the use OF the said Henry ) ..erk the sums men
toned in Slle first eight ae's of the admlnistra
tors private account, OF any of said sums or any
sums, that each ali! very one of said items #
charge was iinpropSrIy and fraudulently renese--
Cd TSalnst said eState by said anmlnlstrat2T, and
egssit not fairly to have been allowed estt-er i'll
utsofe OF in part
IA. because said petitioner is inforaaed and be-
'Ffeves end upen information and bei'ef alleges
THAT the items in Schedule b hereto anneXed. of
$500 for attendance at Probate Ccdrt, and of
S71.I4 for alleged commission or 81 81 30, are i'm
proper ant ought Mt fairly to have been allowed.
That your petitioner as aogesa, d is creditor
of the estate of said Henry s.. Park, that by rea-
son of sccident mistake, defect of notice, or
otherwise, without fault On Ms part , your pei,
under the provisions OF Sections % anu "a OF
Chap. 65 of the Revised Sta flutes of 1908 and all
laws amendat0ry blleI4Si anu duullloHd tlleItto,
and that just e reQulres revision OF said de-
cree of said Probate Court.
That your petitioner more particularly, al l.
though having large claim. to wit, a claim In
excess of $1,000 agaiI st the estate of Henry 5.
Park, as said administrator well knew. was not
notified by said administrator or by anybody
in his behalf of the proceedings mad by SAID ad-
minjstrafor for the allowance of said account as
administrator and said private account, and had
no knowledge of the allowance of said accounts
until more than twenty days had elapsed after
such allowance.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner within one
year after the making OF said decree by SAID
Probate Court prayS this HONORABLE COURT
for leave to enter and prosecute his appeal with
the same effect as if ii had been seasonably done
HERBERT 7, DRAKE.
PaysOn Il Virgin,