Evening star., 1926-04-26
LAW SETS NO LIMIT ON LUNACY
COMMITTEE FEES, AUDITOR. SAYS
Third of Cases and He Investigates Rest-lO
Per Cent Applies to Minors, He Holds.
tives insisting they should have con-

troll"
Mr.. Rankin turned the subject back
to the law or lack Of law regulating
commissions of committees. Il un-
derstand your contention is that in
some cases of guardianships OF per-
sons of unsound mind there Is no
law limiting the fees guardians may
be allowed for making annual re-
ports?"
That Is my understanding and ]
am clearly OF the opinion that neither
the court nor any one else has con-
sciously exceeded that allowance.
Now with reference 20 commits
sions that may be charged by guard
ians of minors" asked Mr.. Rankin
That's clear and specific. The
court couldn't exceed the law OF 10
per cent.
Mr.. Davis further declared that see
ton 1875 was mandatory" and mot
at the discretion of the court.
"Then ii is your contention that
section 1135 doesn't include commit
tees?" asked Representative Milligan.
Democrat Missouri.
THAT is my view of it, replied the
witness.
What has been the general prac-
tice about the amount of commissions
in lunacy cases?"
1T has been not to exceed 10 per
cent and 1 have been following it.
"Then in all your recommendations
to the courts you have adhered to
section 1882"
Yes" At this point Mr.. Davis ex-
planned that when an estate comes
before him for the first time. all legal
services and other duties rendered
"are merged into the 10 per cent COM
mission"
Must Have Court Order.
my understa nding Of the procedure
is" said Mr. Miliigan. that ! would
present my request for a commission
to you for approval or disapproval
and then YOU would present it TO the
court for approval or disapproval.'
II am not allowed to state an ac-
count without a specific order of the
court. But what you have just out
lined has been the general practice
ever since I've been auditor" Mr..
Davis was appointed to Office July /,
1915.
Does the court ever make recon-
mendations 8 to what the fees shall
be-" asked Mr.. Milligan.
Yes" replied Mr.. Davis. 1t re-
fers the account TO me for statement
and directs that | shall allow the
committee say. for example, $3.50,
which is 10 per cent of Sl.500." Mr..
Davis explained that the court does
not conduct formal hearing in these
cases. but requires an affidavit from
the applicant. When MIR. Davis re-
ceives the order from the court he
obeys it without further questioning
he added.
Are there any such orders from
the Fenning cases. Mr.. Milhgan
asked.
Yes, quite a number said Mr..
Davis.
rs it usual or unusual for the court
to fix the AMOUNT
mo. / have many orders for me
to investigate, recommend and re-
port the amount"
Some Cases Get Long Hearings.
What percentage of the cases you
have received does the court fix the
amount"
I'm about one-third Of the cases"
replied Mr.. Davis.
Then when the court makes such
an order fixing the amount, all it has
before 1t is the sworn statement Of
the applicant, and no witnesses are
summoned?'
Yes, but there are cases that re
quire prolonged hearings or investiga-
ton If we suspect something is
wrong"
MIR. Davis was accompanied to the
committee room by Alexander Harris,
assistant auditor: Frank E. Cunning
ham, clerk of the court. and two suit.
cases filled with records of Mr.. Fen.
nings cases. The committee resumed
its sessions at o'clock this afternoon.