The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1908-07-16
Supreme Judicial Court.
WALDO SIS.
SEPTEMBER TERM, A. d. 1908.

WALDO SIS.
SEPTEMBER TERM, A. ID. 1908.
Herbert T. Drake. petitioner, for leave 10 enter
an appeal from the decree of Judge OF PROBATE
allowing the first account and the private account
of Charles e. Park, administrator of the estate
OF Hsn5EE FaFk Herbert T.
Drake of BrocktOn, In the County OF Plymouth
and Commonwealth of Massachusetts; that he IS
interested as creditor IN the estate Of Henry >:
Park, late Of Stockton Springs, in said County Of
Waldo, deceased, of which said estate the FRO
bate Court in and for said County OF Waldo, has
now jurisdiction; that at Probate Court held at
Belfast in and for said County of Waldo, on the
tenth day of March, A. ID. 1908. by decree OF the
Judge of said Probate Court, then and there
of Charles c. Park, administrator of the estate
of Henry $. Park, was allowed, copy of which
said administrators first account, and of said ad-
minStrators private account Is heltunto annex
ed and marked exhibit A"
That your petitioner is aggrleved by sald de-
of said Probate Court, for the following rea-
sons to wit:
/. Because tie clam OF DIR. Wn. c. Newton
for five hundred and thirt, -four $3.50 dollars al
legged in said administrators first account to have
been paid by said administrator for last SICK
ness services is eXorbiEant and was known by
said administrator to be eXorbltdnt, and should
not have been paid by said administrator nor al
lowed by said Probate Court.
, Because the services of said Vim, C. New
ton during the last sickness of Henry :. Park de-
ceased, We're OF the value OF only about three
hundred (S300) dollars, and the bill therefor was
increase to $534 alleged by said administrator
III said account to have been paid by him IN order
that said administrator might retain Tor ms own
persona benefit the difference between SAID sum
of 1854 and the sum tually paid to SAID Newton
i'll settlement OF his sad bill, the amount whereof
is to your petitioner unknown.
8. Because said administrator dlu not acludlIy
pay to said DR.. WIN. G. Newton the sum OF S53i
as stated in said administrator Staccount aud
allowed by said Probate Court.
L. Because said Dr. Nm. c. Newton by pre-
arrangement between HIM ana said admlnlStra-
tor and i'll fraud of the creditors OF sad estate
discounted rom bis said BIN OF S554, or repaid 10
said administrator for sad administrators per
suna benefit, a part of said sum OF 1884, Wnlcn
said sum discounted as aforesaid, said admins
traitor has retained for MS personal benefit with
out right and in fraud of the creditors ana all
other persons interested in sad estate.
5 Eecause the bill OF said Dr: l. +. PARK fof
last Sickness services amounting 10 SOP az
legged in SAID administrators first account TO nave
been paid said Dr. | +. Park l. eXorbltant, ana
was Known to said administrator to nave Detn
exorbitant and should not haveibeen pad by said
administrator. nor allowed by said Probate Court
s. Because the last sickness services" OF SAID
Dr. p. Park ior said deceased. Henry s. fark,
we're of little or no value, and me olil tleIeoa
was placed at $3.50 alleged by SAID administrator
to have been paid by him to said DR.. T. !. PARK IN
order to allow said administrator TO pretend that
he had paid said sum OF S536 10 SAID u l. r.
Park nut in fact to retain a greater part, If not
all of saiu sum- for his own persona dement, WIN.
out right and in fraud OF the creditors ana all
other persons Interested IN sald estate. .,,,
7. Because said admiilstr tor did not actual
Nv paw to said DR.. |. Z. Park the sum OF $3.50
in settlement of his bill for last sickness ser
vices" as stated in said account and allowed IN
said Probate Court. -
g. Because said DR.. l. P. Park by prearfange-
ment between him and said admins TRAITOR ana IN
fraud OF the creditors, and all other persons IN
terested in said estate, repaid to SAID admlnlstra
tor for the personal benefit of said administrator,
Charles c. Park, ii large part OF "a sum OF 1880,
alleged by said administrator in said frst account
to have been paid by said administrator 10 salu
DR.. l. p. Park.
O. Because said petitioner is informed and be-
lieves and upon information ana oeliei alleges
said DR.. L. +. Park the sum OF $50 W lot Hieui-
zines, etc. as stated in said first account a1u d.
lowed by said Probate Court ana II ne quo so 80
said administrator a large part OF SAID sum Oh
5000 by Encouragement and In fraud OF the
rights of the creditors of said estate
10. Because said petitioner Is informed anu
believes and upon information and belief alleges
that said administrator did not actually pay 10
said p C. Dolver the sum OF Sll0 for 'boaIong
etc. during last sickness" as stated in said nrst
account and allowed by said Probate Court, put
on the contrary paid to said p C. Dolliyer, II any
thing a much less sum than said sum OF 81 U,or II
said administrator paid the full amount OF SLY as
stated in said first account said z. c. Dolllyel re-
paid to said administrator for the personal ee Ne
fit of said administrator and IN fraud % VIZ
creditors of said estate large part OF salo sum
of $40, the amount whereof Is to your petll'oiei
unknown.
ministrator, Charles C. Park against the estate
of Henry s. Park to the amount of $5,396.2S, was
allowed by said Probate Court.
-. Because in said private account of said ad
mnistrator the said Probate Court allowed to
said administrator SAID administrators bill for
board of said decea sed from July 80 1885, to June
Z, 1908. 253 weeks, at the rate of $500 per week
amounting to $3.50, upon which sum was credited
September IT, 1906 SIS, claimed to have been
paid thereon by sand deceased, OF which said
amount large part thereof was barred by the
Statute of Limitations, and should not have been
allowed by said Probate Court,
IS. Because said petitioner.s informed and be-
lieves and upon information and belief alleges
that said administrator has not actually paid to
the use OF the said Henry S. Park the sums men,
toned in the first eight items of the adminiStra
tors private account, or any of said sums or any
part of said sums or any part OF any of said
sums; that each and every one of said items of
charge was improperly and fraudulently render
Cd against sad estate by said administrator. and
ought not fairly to have been allowed either in
whole or in part
a. Recause said petitioner is informed and be-
lieves and upon information and belief alleges
that the items in Schedule hereto annexed OF
$780, for attendance at Probate Court and of
ST. IA for alleged commission on 81, 422 3d. are i'm
proper and ought not fairly to have been allowed.
That your petitioner as aforesaid is a creditor
of the estate of said Henry 8. Park, that by rea-
son of accident, mistake, defect of notice, or
otherwise, without fault on his part, your petit
TONER omitted 10 claim and prosecute his appeal
under the provisions OF Sections % and "a of
Chap. 65 of the Revised Statutes of 1908 and all
laws amendatory thereof and additional thereto;
and that justice requires revision OF SAID de-
cree Of said Probate Court.
That your petitioner more particularly, al
though having large claim. to wit, claim In
excess of g., 600 against the estate of Henry s.
Park. as said administrator well knew, was not
notified by said administrator or by anybody
in his behalf of the proceedings had by said ad-
for the allowance of said account as
and said private account, and had
no knowledge of the allowance of said accounts
until more than twenty days had elapsed after
such allowance.