The Famous Kempf Case As Discussed In The Washtenaw Post

F. Pistoneras has a long advertisement of himself in the editorial column of the Wash'enaw Post last week lor whieh he has paid in doing dirty work for that feminine sheet. It is all about the Kempf case. That distinguished attorney is supremr ly happy to think that in settling that case as executor he managed to get up one law suit in the probate court, two law suits in the circuit court, and two law suits in the supreme court - five suits in all- by this means nicely feathering kin own nest. It is needless to say that F. Ptstorious is llie onlyperaon who iruule any money out of all thix litigalion. The estáte lost, the heirs lost, thecounty lost, iis it had to pay the expense of rnnning the circuit court to try them. Frederick Kempf, a quiet, peaceable and honest old gentleman, who was living with a second wife and had two sets of children employed F. Pistorious to draw his will, which eontained in substance three principal divisions. First, He gave his farm and the property on the farm to the wife and the youngest set of children. Seeond, He gave all the rest of the properiy to fhe oldpst set of children. Thirá, For some reason or other the old gentleman made him, Pistorious one of the executors of the will. Notice this fact . Mr. Kempf by this will disposed bsolntely of every dollar of lm property. é Pistoiious when he carne to render his final account in the probate court actually insisted upon building a monument for this family. The older children desired to erect a monument at their ere grave themselves and were willing to pay the expense. Mr. Pistorious objected and insisted tbat he was the miin to erect a monument at the grave of Frederick Kenfyf and nol his cbildren. Judge Harriman decided that Mr. Kempf having disposed of every dollar of his property by his will the exeoutor had no right to take part of that propi rty and build a monument- thus tnking a part of the property from the very persons to whom Mr. Kempf had given it in his will, especially as Mr. Kempf 's older children were ready and willing tobuild the monument themselves and pay the whole expense. Mr. PistorioiiB appealed from this decisión of Judge Hiirrimau to the circuit court and from thence to the supreme court. This was the iirst case. The supreme eourt decided that an executor or adminifltrator could build a monument and allowed Mr. Pistonous to draw his fees out uf the estáte. This decisión made Pistorious happy- there was moneyin dm. On the hearing of the final account of Pistorious aiiotlicr.inestion arose. The will gave the farm and the property on it to the widow and youngest children. Now wh. nJIr. Kempf died there was a iarge qnantity of wheat in the grauery ready for the market. Thü wheat wa not groten whentíu willwa made and Judge Harriman decided that it did not bolong to the widow and yonnger children as property on tlie farm; he decided that it belonged to the older children. Mr. PiHtorioiiH, aoting lor the widow md younger children, appealed from this decisión to the circuit court and from there to the supreme court. The supreme cmnt decided that Judge Harriman was riK'ht and that the wheat did not belon.r to the widow and children, but they rIso denidod that the will was so vaguely drawn and so indetinite in its provisión that they gave Piatorious his fees in this case also. This decisión also made Pistorious happy, there was money in it - for Mm. This ended the five law suits whioh Pietorious managed to get up at the expense of the estáte of the honest, industrious, Frederick Keinpf - a man who abhored law snits and shuddered at wieked htigation. Moral: If you want DO law snits after yon are dead don't gat Pistorions to draw yonr wil!.