The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1911-06-23
TO HEAR QUESTION
As TO INCOME TAX
IMPORTANT CONTROVERSY 0Oils
10 sUpAEhm COURT ron
DnOIsIOE.
lTIom Thar.layIl AdgsIll.srl

al NPvitANA question 90 70 tht coll
lection Of income tax being 10 dispute
between Assessor Charles n. Wilder aud
the Hawaiian Trust Company, trustee
Of the estate Of the late George Gal.
braith, the supreme court has been
asked 70 determine the respective
rights Of the parties. A. move IN
this direction, Deputy Attorney General
Il. W. sutton, on behalf Of the tax as
SCISSOR, fled in tho supreme court yes
terday an agreed statement Of facts be.
tween the parties.
GalbTqitB, died in 1904, and bis estate
was trapsferred to the Hawaiian Trust
Company In trust 10 pay from the in
come certain aDnuiiies, the surplus 10
be accumulated and distributed at the
Termination Of the trust, In 1910 the
gross income was sl9,slG, the expenses
Of management ss077.5O, leaving a net
income Of &l0s3s6O, from which there
! was paid 10 the various annuitante
EO0O60, leaving balance OF surplus
income amounting 10 S2ss7.sl.
, ING questions which the supreme
court ~ asked TO decide are ag foilows;
Under the income tax law, Is the trus.
, tee required TO make return Of and ba
taxed on the net income bv n from
, tho estate in excess Of tho expenses 81
/ management, or may the trustee, In
ADOPTION TO those expenses deduct the
amount paid 10 the annuitants, one or
more deductions Of 1880, or IA the spr.
, plus Income, after the payment of OK.
} penses Of management and OF the an.
J nnities exempt, 30 that the trustee need
pay no income tax thereonf
~ tho tax as 10 the amounts Of In.
come paid by the trustee 70 the an.
! nnta9ts nssessable against them indi.
viduhlly, or against The trustee9
Kinney, PrOsseT, Anderson & Marx
represent the Hawaiian Trust Company.
Z Want Appeal Dismissed.
0 Attorney G. u. Peters, representing
: the PoTtnRuese Benevolent Society,
Q MED ~ tho supreme court yesterday q
Y motion to dismiss tho appeal Of Jose
4 DOs Phsos hodriRnes, on the ground
/. TINT tho order Of the circuit court indga
. AZ chambers, qnasbing the summons
0 from which the appeal Is taken, ls nn
0 interlocut0ry order and not Anal one,
!. ana tbat said appeal was not allowed
by the circuit judge.
Arguments Tomorrow.
The case OF william X. Uuku. n
: minor, by his next friend, against Elm.
beth Kaio ct A., on exceptions from The
= circuit court Of the fifth circuit, has
. been set for argument Friday morning
!, the supreme cOurt Thompson X
: Wilder and William Il. Igmer for
4. PainbB, and Kinney, Prosser, Ander.
= son q Marx for defendants.
Q Judge Is oualiaod.
J. Tho supreme court decided Yesterday
9 tGat circuit judge who, previous to
n ms appointment, acted as counsel for
4 tbe petitioner IN petition for the an
+ Polntment OF guardian, Is not DIS.
! qualified, under section eighty.four og
tho organic net, as amended NAV 27'
iplO, from making an order requiring
lne guardian to file an inventory and
J. account.
. The matter came up In re tho guard.
9 ianship Of Hildretb Castle HltebcocI n
y MINOR, on reserved question from the
o circuit court judge Of the fourth cirepit.
b Under tho will of tho lato Edward N.
y hitchcock, bis wife was named as
~ guardian Of their daughter. Mrs.
70 hitchcock, now Mrs. u. II. Moses. filed
y petition that she be appointed guard
= ian, and tho law firm OF which the pres.
r ont Judge Of tho fourth circuit was
y then u member represented her. Some
y months later the circuit judge, OF his
% own motion, made nm order that duly
70 authenticated Inventory and itcmlzed
" account DO filed. Mrs. Moses filed a
y. response 10 that effect that, having
a. boon named guardian by tho child's
u fathoT, her appointment by the court
70 was nugatory and void, and she was
under no legal obligation TO Alo an nc.
'f count Tho point WAS also raised that
u the judge was disqualified TO make INV
% order In the cause or 10 oft IN tho cnse
u ny reaaon OF having acted no counsef,
question Was reserved 10 tho supreme
70 court on tho matter, and the unhnlmOus
20 nccislon or That court, ~ rendered yes-
no terdny by Chief Justice Robertgon
n Justices Perry and Do Bolt concurrfne,
10 ms follows,
0g ,'Tbe proceedings had before tho cir.
W cut 1ndRo, IN which Mrs. Moeos Was
~ appointed Ru0rdiap Of tho person and
Do property OF hor daughter, was undOubt.
NJ coy q case within the meaning Of tho
~ statute. That cage ended, however,
- WIN lhe order appointing tho guard.
IN Ian, That was o hnal and appeaIablo
Id order II accomplished ana ended tbe
purpose for which the proceeding was
r0mmeneed, The actions ~ the guard,
mn viii respect 10 the administration
" or tho trust are matters which have Oe,
w cured elpee her appointment, and AZ 10
W when does not appear that tho lndRs
pp gave advice o. had any connection 40
20 attorney, The fact that The papers m
~ ne present proceeding bear Tho same
70 ME ~ those 10 The former proceeding
W. lofs not necessarily make The two pro-
N eeedilga part " lha same ease, Nor
Wy does the feet that the validity 0f lhs
pi order made ~ The hFsi proceeding may
" 20 questioned ~ The Present prlea6d,
Al ING qilgnallfy The iu9peu
w The hlnIeme court adds that, iassumY
el gg that ne order NJ Tho ellfiii nudge
W. qllefllnR lle guardian 10 Mo % ~
N ssp,'ls sAa Asfalpl % % regarded
wv llaD Va y WeTe allpellan ~ M 0iioar
m NJ lhn e0uli 4 mnel be considered h
~ nfN ana 1lailnel eaas ID ID R9l no
lg lhw Nhleh ine Judge aelea ~