The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1916-03-31
HBRTWELl Will
CONSTRUED BY
Supreme COURT
Judge Whltpey,s Decree Is lsus-
tanned In Decision Written BY
Justice Watson IA
GRANDSON or FORMER ..s
CHIEF JUSTICE LOSES
Tribunal Holds Chatter Cannot
Come Within Term Children
In Contested instrument

.a.s #" d
In the matter Of the estate Of Al.
fred s. Hartwell, deceased, the su.
preme court yesterday under a unani.
nous decision handed down and writ
ten by Associate justice Watson affirm
ed the decree made by Circuit Judge
Whitney in the case some time ago. 4
The case has been in the circuit ami
supreme court on various occasions and
is an interesting one. Under Judge
Whitney's decree, now affirmed by the
supreme. court, the claim Of grandson
of the late Chief Justice Hartwell is
disalloVed, the claim amounting to
about $l4,375. H. [gl. ..
The preamble Of the latest supreme
court decision in the case tells the
story: ah, y n%s 49, I'D t...ut B
This is an appeal from decree
of distribution made by a circuit Judge
of the first circnit court sitting at
chambers in probate. ~ :,
ffAIfred s. Hartwell, o resident bf
Honolulu, and a former chief Justice OF
this court, died on the thirtieth OF
August, 1912, leaving last will and
testament dated Ap.ii 22, 1919, where
by, after devises aud requests Of
specific property to his son and Ger.
tain of his daughters by name, be gave
the residue of his property I'm eqral
shares to all my children who shall be
living at my decease.' -'
Excluded Grandson -
, "fWhen he made his will he had
seven children, six daughters and n
son, all of whom survived him. One
daughter, Mrs. Charlotte Lee Hartwell
Chatter, had died on the third day Of
September, 1909, leaving the appel ant,
who was borne some three or four DAYS
before his mothers death, surviving.
The testatOr knew that his said daugh
ter was dead and that the appellant
was living at the date Of his will.
"The residue of the testatorls es.
tate consists of persoHal property. In
eluding monev,y amounting to about
Al l5,e6o n valnes The n,inos, I 4 through
his guardian, appeared and made claim
to a distributive one.eighth share OF
such residuary estate on the groun
that the devise, above quoted, was q
devise to issue living at the decea-e of
the testatOr, hasing the claim on the
grounds az that the testat"r SO IN.
derstOod the words in question; Ca
that any other construction would
cause a disherison of the lawful heir
Of the testator, and cay that such min.
or grandchild would otherw'se take as
a pretermitted heir.
Whitney Sustained DE-.
"The claim of the minor was reject.
ed by the court below and a decree
e"teFcd ordering distrit ution under the
will to the seven surviving children of
the testator Off the entire residue of
the estate, excluding the appellant
from such distribution. From this de
cree the appeal was taken by the
minor" va .,..
The claimant contended that being
a grandson Of the deceased he cane ID
within the term children, y as used ID
the will. ~. o., "
"Therc is nothing in the language
! of this will nor in the c'rcrms'apccs
surrounding the parties at the tine of
I its maxine. - says the supreme court
decision, THAT would Justify us ID
withdrawing it from the operation
therein used
THE decree appealed from is af
frmed.' 'r.