The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1908-01-17

was paid $500 for, as the voucher reads
fees as attorney for the estate Inc
rule Is that charges for legal services
will be allowed when they are neces-
sary Estate of Maikai, 3 Haw. 522
I'm this case the record does not dis
close the necessity for such services,
nor even for what they were, and the
amount is certainly very high. At the
oral argument, I'm answer TO a ques-
ton from the bench, Mr. Coke stated
/ that this charge was for past and also
| for future services without disclosing
sisted or An executor should not be
allowed an expenditure for legal SER
vices to be rendered I'm the future. This
amount should be disa lowed unless 1t
appears that the services were rend-
cred and were necessary and unless
/ also It is shown that the amount Is
! reasonable. If any Of it was for SER
vices TO the temporary administ ators,
! that part should not be allowed.
The executor reports that loans Of
! $3.50 were made to several persons, in
! GLIDING one of $1,000 to himself. These
are called investments in the accounts.
| While we do not say that an executor
under no circumstances may invest
money which is on hand and not need
ed for any other purpose in case a fl
nal distribution cannot be made with
! in the usual time, still it is clear that
| such a procedure should not be al
| lowed without good and sufficient rea-
sons. In this case there appears to De
could not have been had of this
| amount 1t does not appear whether
! these loans are secured or unsecured,
or, if they draw interest, the rate Of
interest, or the time for which they
were made, or anything else about
them, as no vouchers for the amounts
were filed. So far as the amount OF
the loan to Lyons himself Is concern
ed, that must be surcharged. No ex-
PLANTATION can justify such a PROPOSE.
ton. It is almost incredible that sucN
an expenditure should pass Unchal-
lenged by both the master and the CIR
cult judge.
An item of &c. which was paid for
acknowledgment of a release of .
mortgage, is questioned for the rea-
son that no voucher for the same was
filed. This amount should be disal-
lowed unless It is sufficiently shown
that It was paid, either by producing
a voucher or some ether satisfactory
evidence.
Credit is asked for the payment OF
1880 to Rosa Enos, the widow. This
can only be allowed on the theory OF
a partial distribution, that is, that II
has been finally distributed to the
trustees who are the residuary devi.
sees and legatees. If such theory
cannot be followed out, the whole
amount will have to be surcharged fol
the reason that the will provides tC
whom the balance of the property re
naming after the payment of debts
legacies and expenses shall be deliver
ed, namely, the trustees.
1t is obvious that the commissions
will have to be readjusted, whicl
should be strictly figured out in ac
cordance with Sec. 1890 II. L., ant
which may be reduced for neglect O
duties. Estate of Alma, 10 Haw. 1888
There Is another matter whicl
should be noticed. Mr.. Lyons was ap
pointed by the circuit Judge as one o.
the executors in place of Rosa Enos
named by the testator as executrix
!, who refused to act An executor il
one who is named by the testator t
carry out the provisions of the will
AS Lyons was not so named, he shoulC
be regarded, If properly appointed any
thing, as an administrator with tn,
will annexed to act with the two ex
ecutors named in the will
The record is not sufficient for thi
court to pass intelligently upon all o
the items in the accounts as they stanC
and, consequently, the whole matte
I will have to be referred back to tn,
circuit judge to proceed in accord
ance with this opinion.
! Inc Order appealed from Is reversed
and the cause is remanded to the cir
: cult judge for further proceedings con
sistent with this opinion.
e. M. Watson and ]. l.. Coke for I
b. Lyons, appellee.
! G. II. Olson, Holmes & Stanley anC
], NJ Vivas with him on the brieO, 70
! j. V. Maciel and A. Enos, appellants
DRINKS ON TRAIN; GOES TO JAIL
DOVER, Dec. 3O.-Daniel Young, 0
|