A Scandal of Probate: Administrator Stripped of Authority Over Baglien Estate
A court-appointed referee uncovers a pattern of fraudulent claims and unauthorized spending in the estate of a man who died in a house fire.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Andrew Chilberg, administrator of the estate of John G. Baglien, brought suit yesterday against D. H. Hawley, the former administrator, and his bondsmen to recover $1,238.75, alleged to be due the estate. John G. Baglien was burned to death in October 1889 in a house owned by Patrick L. Fox. He left no will, and D. H. Hawley was appointed administrator. Patrick L. Fox and G. Niblock went on his bond, which was fixed at $4,000. An inventory showed $1,800 in cash, personal property valued at $23.60, and a lot valued at $100. Last May, when Hawley filed his final account, the heir, Gulfrand Gulfrandsen Sagiiea, objected, claiming the administrator's expenditures were fraudulent and excessive. Attorney Thomas B. Hardin was appointed referee and found that Hawley had accepted a number of claims against the estate without court authority after the time for presentation had expired. Other claims were found to be entirely without foundation. It was recommended that these false claims be charged to Hawley, that he be removed from office, and that he be paid no compensation. On January 22, Judge Lichtenberg removed Hawley, and yesterday, Chilberg began legal proceedings to recover the funds.
“It was recommended that the amount of these false claims be charged to Hawley, and that he be removed from office and no compensation be paid for his services.”
The probate process in the 1890s was a murky landscape for heirs, often exploited by politically connected administrators. Much like today's concerns over predatory practices in guardianship and estate management, this case reflects the struggle to hold powerful actors accountable when they view a vulnerable estate as a personal piggy bank.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.