
    PROVIDENCE,
    Samuel Bennett et ux. et al., Appellants, vs. Gardner Howard.
    The appointment of A. as administrator on an estate was objected to upon the ground that A. was not a suitable person to administer, because an improper intimacy existed between him and one of the distributees. It did not appear that such distributee liád any claim as a creditor against the estate of the intestate, or had any other interest therein than as a distributee.
    
      Held, that the alleged intimacy between A. and the-distributee referred to would, not show that the other distributees would be prejudiced by the appointment of-A., and hence, that testimony as to specific acts of adultery between A. and such distributee, or of his intimacy with her, was irrelevant, and properly excluded.
    Appellants’ petition for a new trial.
    Appeal from a decree of the Court of Probate of the town of Poster by which the appellee was appointed administrator on the estate of Charles W. Pierce, deceased. The objection to the appointment set forth in the reasons of appeal was, in substance, that the appellee was not a suitable person to administer, because he would unjustly favor one of the distributees between whom and himself an improper intimacy existed.
    
      Charles H. Page & Franklin P Oiuen, for appellants.
    
      Ziba O. iSlocwn, for appellee.
    
      October 16, 1893.
   Per Curiam.

The record does not show that the distributee, with whom it is alleged that the appellee is intimate, has any claim as a creditor against the estate of the intestate or any interest in it other than as a distributee. This being so, no reason appears which would enable the appellee to favor her at the expense of the other distributees. As it does not appear that the rights of the appellants would be in any way prejudiced by the appointment of the appellee, we think that testimony as to the specific acts of adultery between the appellee and the distributee referred to, or of his intimacy with her, was irrelevant and that the court below did not err in excluding it.

The appellants’ petition for a new trial is denied and dismissed.  