The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1915-10-07
new LEASE OF LIFE
Judge Belden Refuses to
Gust Administrator for
Charles Durkee Estate.
SAYS PROCEEDINGS REGULAR
tjourt Fails to Pass ON Question of
Mythical Millions But Declares That
Administration of Estate Is Properly
In Kenosha County.

The old Dr.kee claim was given an
other lease of life on Tuesday when
Judge r. b. Beden iii the circuit court
handed down decision sustaining the
action Of the county court iii appoint
lug en- administrator de bonis non for
the estate Of Charles Durkee. In the
decision the court makes no pretense
of passing on The validity of the alleged
claim of the estate against the United
States Government or on the existence
Of such a claim or of any property be-
longing to the estate of Charles Durkee.
He simply passes on the right of the
Kenosha County Court TO name an adj
ministrator In his decision he holds
that ait the time Of his death Charles
Durkee was citizen Of Ken0sha coun-
ty and the state of Wisconsin and that
for this reason his estate is properly ad-
ministrated here. Judge Belden holds
that if there is any property of
Charles Durkee in the state of Utah
and ancillary administration is grant
ed in that state this action will in no
way interfere with administration in
Kenosha county He holds, however,
that the development of any undiscov-
cred assets of the estate in Utah must
properly be reported to the administra-
tor named by the county court of Keno
sha county.
TO the thousands who have purchas-
~ shares Of stock IN the nprl1ee cIapn
The decision is Of little value. 10 the
men who plan to sell further stock in
the claim the decision of the court, dis
missing the appeal from the county
court, gives a new license. This deci-
sion will be touted as another reason for
selling more stock and keeping up the
fight for the claim which the United
States Government has repeatedly de-
clared has no existence and against
trafficking in shares of stock in the
claim which has been repeatedly the
substance of fraud orders issued by the
postoffice department. Under the de-
cision of the court, Henry j. Hastings
de bonis non for the estate of Charles
Durkee. Attorney Hastings may now
properly proceed at once and clean up
all assets that may be outstanding un-
less the Utah administrator decides to
take the matter to the Supreme Court
of Wisconsin. In his decision Judge
Belden says in part:
E'The only question before this court
presently is the question of jurisdiction
to entertain the appeal-and that is
negatively determined.
81 think the words executor and
administrator, contained in Section
4031 r. S., refer only to local execu-
tors or administrators and probably
like officers appointed by the court of
original and primary jurisdiction of
other states properly proceeding within
this jurisdiction, and do not include an
ancillary administrator.
THE statement contained in the
brief of Counsel CLANCY for the Utah
administrator that it can make little
difference to him and his future course
nnder his duties as such administrator
what action this court (the County
Court of Kenosha County, wisconsin,
takes upon this petition (for admins
tration de bonis non) and that his ap-
pearance here is only a courtesy to ad-
wise the County Court of Kenosha
County of the existence of the Utah
administrator, comedies that the Utah
administrator has no such interest in
the proceedings here as constitutes him
a person aggrieved. l.
'eThe appearance by the Wisconsin
administrator in the instant hearing
was special for the purpose of object
inc to the jurisdiction of this court.
Even if his appearance might be de
nominated general, he could not there
bv waive want of jurisdiction. His
capacity and his appearance are not
personal but representative.
S.The ruling OF this court is that the
ITtah administrator has no interest or
standing here emitting him to object
10 the probate proceedings or the APP
nointment Of the administrator de bon
II non, with the will annexed, of the
estate of Charles Durkee, deceased, in
and by the County Court Of Kenosha
county, that he is not person aggriev-
IA, bv the action of that court in
question, that he is not entitled to ap-
neal therefrom and that the appeal
aagst be dismissed
"synataver questions regarding the
I-..;a8i .4ias ssa rNunlasitT of the npo.