The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1915-01-22

W INV UNIV unN 1oAtfV ehN
ding Of that petition reports were free.
differentiated in the Territory that TheI-
ma bad disinhcrited hcf own child and
all Of the estate had been given to me
and my relatives, These reports have
greatly preiudice1 people against me
ahd this prejudice has beens augmented
by Mr. Q. II. Olson and the other at,
torneys Of Mrs. Knight, particularly In
the Presentation Of the petition Of Mrs.
knight and the afiidavits r IhaSs> re.
,ferrod 20. .st \. go
His Relatives Got But Little
The will of Thelma, however, shows
the reports TO he unfounded. BIZ Il,
ThelIna gave to her blood relatives and
to her father in.law, Frederick s.
Knight, in an the sum Of $4,000. TO
four of my own relatives she gave
$4,000 each, and that is all my relatives
get under the will. The win further
shows that the child was not disinherit-
cd but was given m income from the
estate twice az large as l will receive
as Ishavc stated above and as the will
itself shows. " "a
4 have the best interests Of my
child at heart and | do not believe his
best interests will be advanced by the
appointment of Mr.. Olson TO represent
him in any manner, because Of Mr..
Olson being the attorney of Mrs
Knight and because he is a stranger,
so far as the child is Concerned. or any
interest Of The child, and for these rea-
sons. / desire at least that my attorneys
be permitted to be heard upon the ft.
ness of Mr.. Olson, under the cireuml
stances, to be appointed guardian ad
Item OF my child, and upon the quess
tion as TO whether or not Antonio Per-
fy, Esquire, was properly appointed by
the court In this proceeding. q
have an interest in seeing that
The estate of my child given him by
Thelma is conserved, and not squander-
ed IN attorneys fees and costs unneccs.
sarily Incurred by persons who are fight.
ing and abusing me over the head of
the child and will look for their fees
and compensation out Of the child's es.
tate. ! have no objection to and would
urge the retention of Judge Perry as
guardian adj Item in this proceeding
or the appointment of some other disin.
terested person, that is, DISTINGUISHED as
between Mrs. Knight aud myself, who
would have no other intereat to con.
slider but that Of the child.1' F.
In their request to be allowed 70 ap.
pear In the hearing of @. II. Olson 8
motion, wherein the latter asks to be
substituted for Judge Perry as guard.
ian ad Item of the minor, Fred w.
Miiverton, for Thompson, Wilder, Mil.
verton a. Lymer, and John w. 'Catheart,
attorneys for Henry Gaillard Smart,
set forth that the request is made 'sbe..
cause Of the interest of the father =.
in the appointment of proper and
suitable person as guardian ad litem
g.,..; and further that said attorneys
be allowed to appear in order to present
to this court objections to the granting
of said motions, and to present obiec,
tions TO the fitness Of said G. II. Olsou
for such appointment; and to aid and
assist the court in an enquiry as to the
qualifications Of the said petitioner and
noyant for such appointment"
Objections To Olson Specified
. The grounds on which tho objections
against Olson are made arc, in SUBJ
stance, that Smart is the father and
natural guardian Of the minor; that
Olson is not relative, but a strangey
TO the minor, whose best interests re-
qnire the appointment of person who
Is, in all respects, disinterested; that
The minor Is best interests require the
appointment Of a person indifferent as
between the father and. grandmother:
that Olson is neither a disinterested
nor indifferent person; that Antonio
Perry is what Olson is not, and that
Perry was nominated by the court and
not by Smart or the .latter's counsel.
Milyerton y AFFIDAVIT goes at consid-
cradle length into the question of OF
son S motion. He charges that Olson
attempted to have Judge Whitney
Grant his motion without Smart 8 at
,torneys being given an opportunity to
be heard and that he saw copy of
tho motion only few minutes before
the original was filed in court. lie
also draws a parallel between the ap.
pointment Of WA. Kinney and the at,
ter subsequent substitution by b. L,
Wilmington with the present attempt
Of Olson to succeed Perry. Milverton
claims the case is identieal; Kinney
was an interested person and Olson is
one likewise and cannot, therefore
represent the interests of the
minor, whose interests conflict with thu
interests of others on the main issue.
Perry Was Jdge's Choice -. r.. !.
r. 4. Thompson relates in his atfda
Wit in what manner Judge Perry came
to be appointed. The affidavit is cal
'rIlated to disprove the charge made
by, Olson that Perry was appointed
guardian ad Item of Richard Smart
the minor, on the nomination of tht
minor s father or the latter''s counsel
The affidavit, in full is as follows:
Son the twelfth day of January
1915, telephoned to the chambers Of
Honorable w. l.. Whitney, and was in
formed that he was at home sick. j
wanted to file a petition for the prob
ate of the will In the above entitled
matter, and also TO present a petition
showing the necessity Of the appoint
ment of guardian ad htem, and an
order appointing such person as thu
Judge might select.
''When | learned Judge whitney was
indisposed, l went TO his house anG
presented the petition for probate Of
will, order of publication Of notice, AM
a petition for the appointment of Z
guardian ad litem for the minor child
Judge Whitney was In bed and NOV e.
with SOME diffeultv and eyidencp nj