The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1908-07-23
Supreme Judicial Court
WALDO SIS.
SEpTEN Der TERM, A. D. 1908.

WALDO SIS. ,
SEPrEN Der TERM, A. D. 1908.
Herbert r. Drake. petitioner, for leave TO enter
an appeal from the decree of Judge OF Probate
allowing the first account aud the private account
of Charles G. Park, administrator OF the estate
of Henry s; Park, deceased ,,r, ,,,.,o.. n
RESPECTFULLY REPRESENTS Herbert L.
Drake of Brockton in the County or Piymoutll
and Commonwealth OF Massachusetts that he is
interested as creditor in the estate OF Henry 5.
Park, late Of stockton springs, III SAID county OF
Waldo deceased of which said estate the Pro-
bate Court in and for said County of Waldo, has
now jurisdiction; that at Probate Court held at
tenth day of March, A. ID. 1868 by decree of the
Judge of SAID Probate Court then and there
made the first account, and the private account
of Charles g. Park, administrator OF the estate
of Henry $. Park was allowed, a copy of which
said administrators first account, and OF said ad-
ministrator's private account Is hefeuhto annex
ed and marked Exhibit A.
That your petitioner is aggreyed by SAID de-
cree of said Probate Court, for the following rea-
sons, to wit:
for five hundred and thirty -four (S53D dollars, al
legged in said administrators first account to have
been paid by said administrator for last sick
ness services is eXorbil ant and was known by
said administrator to be eXorbitant and should
not have been paid by said administrator nor al
lowed by said Probate Court
. Because the services of said VIM, e. New
ton during the last sickness of Henry S. Park, de-
ceased were of the value of only about three
hundred $500 dollars, and the Dill therefor was
in said account to have been paid by him in order
that said administrator might retain Tor ms own
personal benefit the difference between said sum
of 1854 and the sum actually PAID TO SAD newton
in settlement of his sad bill, the amount whereof
is to your petitioner unknown.
3, Because said administrator did not actually
nav to said DR.. WIN. c. Newton the sum OF 1854
as stated in said administrator first account and
allowed by said Probate Court.
a Because, said Dr.. VIM. c. Newton by pre-
arrangem between HIM and said administra-
in frau n a o
discounted from his said blll OF SSH or repaid 10
said administrator for said administrators per
sona benefit. part OF sala sun, Oh So34 wilCl
traitor has retained for his personal dement, with
out right and in fraud OF the creditors ana all
other persons interested IN said estate.
5 because the bill Of said Dr.. l. 7. Park for
"iast sickness services" amounting to 1886, al
legged in SAID administrators first account TO nave
been paid said DE- L +, PARK Is eXorpltant, ana
was known to SAID administrator to have been
exorbitant and should not havelDeen pad by SAID
administrator, nor allowed by said Probate Court;
g. Because the last sickness stryices' OF said
Or. I p. Park Tor said deceased, Henry S. Park,
we're of little or no value, and the Dill Thereon
was placed at $3.50 alleged by said ADMINISTRATOR
to have been paid by him to sad lf I. l: raIk; III
order to allow said administrator TO pretend that
he had paid said sum OF $3.50 TO sald III: L. +.
Park. but in fact to retain greater part: II not
all of saiu sum- for his own personal benefit with.
out right and in fraud of the creditors ana All
other persons Interested in said estate.
l. Because said adminlstr tor dld not actual
l.. L.
in settlement of his bin for last sickness ser
vices as stated i'll said account ana allowed III
said Probate Court.
ment between HIM and said administrator ana III
fraud OF the creditors, and all other persons III
terested in SAID estate, repaid to SAID aumnlstFd
tor for the personal benefit OF sad adnlnistratof e'
Charles c, Park, a large part OF "a q sum OF $3.50,
alleged by said administrator in sad nrst account
to have been paid by said administrator 70 Saio
Dr.. Z, Park. 100, ,,.a ha-
0, Because SAID petitioner is informed ana pc
iieves and upon information and benef alleges
that said administrator did not actually pay 10
said DIR. |. T. Park the sum OF $50 30 foI ilee,
cineS ETC. as stated in SAID first account ana az
lowed by said Probate Court, and If he uld SO
actually pay said sum said L. r. Park Iepalu W
said administrator large part OF SAID sum ~, ol
500 so by Encouragement and IN Hauo vi VIC
rights of the creditors of SAID estate
TO- Because said petitioner is informed and
believes and upon information and belef allests
that said administrator did not actually pay 10
said Y. C. Dolliver the sum of $40 for DoaIuins,
etc. during last sickness" AS stated IN salu IT'S
account and allowed by SAID ProDate Coui v pu'
on the contrary paid to said c. DolVer, II any
thing a much less sum than SAID sum OF Silo,ol II
said administrator paid the full amount OF sllo aS
stated in said first account, said T. U DoliNti re-
paid to SAID administrator tor the persona pV ~
fit of said administrator and in fraud OF te
creditors of said estate large part of sala; sum
of $40, the amount whereof Is to your petitioner
unknown.
IL. Because the personal account of said ad
l.
of Henry S. Park to the amount of S5,396.2S, was
allowed by said Probate Court.
II. Because in said private account of said ad
ministrator the said Probate Court allowed to
said administrator said administrators bill for
board CT said decea sed from July 3d. 1898, to June
7, 1903 253 weeks, at the rate of $500 per week,
amounting to $3.50. upon which sum was credited
September II, 1906, SIS, claimed to have been
paid thereon by SAID 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
10. Because said petitioner is 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 mem
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 SAID 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-
lieyes and upon information and belief alleges
that the items in Schedule b hereto annexed, of
$780, for attendance at Probate Court, and OF
ST. Ii 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 creditor
of the estate OF said Henry ,. PARK tilat py 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
Chan 65 of fine Revised Statutes of 1908 and all
laws amendatOry thereof ana additional tleretoi
and that justice requires revision OF SAID de-
cree of said Probate Court.
That your petitioner more particularly, al
though having a large claim, to wit, a claim in
excess of $1,000 again st the estate OF Henry 5.
Park, as said administrator well knew, was not
notified by said administrator OF by anybody
in his behalf OF the proceedings had by said adj
minstrator for the allowance OF said account as
administrator and said private account and naa
no knowledge of the allowance of said accounts
until more than twenty days had elapsed after
such allowance
wear after the making of said decree by SAID
Probate Court prays this HONORA BE COURT
for leave to enter and prosecute his appeal with
the same effect as if 1t had been Seasonably done
HERBERT T, DRAKE,
PaysOn & Virgin,
Whipple, Sears & Ogden of Counsel.