The sun., 1889-11-21
mrs. PEoK,s WILL SET ASIDE
Ths surroGate Holds that Dr. BeldeA Pre-
cured u ~ Uhdue Inaasnce and Frnua.

Ths guFroGate Holds that Dr. BeIdeA Pre-
eured u by Uhdue Inansnce end Frnua.
The Peck will case has been decided by
Surrogate Ransom In favor OF the contestants,
and the heirs OF DR.. Ebenezer b. Belden will re-
ceiVe nothing from tho estate unless the Su-
preme Court should reverse the judgment
The Surrogate. In his opinion. finds that the
decedsnt Mrs. Sarah II. Peck. was Of sound
mind whom the will was executed in June. 1882,
but he sustains the charge Of the contestants.
who are the hoirs-at-law, that DR.. Belden used
undue influence In procuring her signature to
the instrument which he had himself drawn
up. The case has been before both Surrogates
Rollins and Ransom. and during the progress
Of the litigation. after Judge Rollins had once
refused to probate the will Dr.. Belden. the pro-
ponent, died. The case has been continued by
his heirs. The relations between DR.. Belden
and Mrs. Peck, as developed at the trial and
reviewed By Surrogate Ransom in his decision.
Under the viii liza Ss offsred Dr. Bslden is made
and kim Who are So
are her sisters and their children she came
aSdoS Ss viii TSh 81 SSP SGS
death IN q ns next Of kin
Psef Ted %t66us oy
Dr. BeIden's visits numbered ID from m loo to SS SO
per year. and there was scarce an interview Of
before sSe mSinFP 81 her Vii Mrs.
Peck: who In fact was an ignorant and dissi-
pate pa,,sd old womsn relied upon Pr. BSden NOT
checks were die out By bis hand. % and the h st l
Surrogate hanson fnds that t. there here is no
proof that Mrs. Peck ever gave instr uctions for
is admitted that the instrument was not In the
Doctors ,hahndWriting, ,ha yet the Surrogate is
tsef Was drawn was Wtten by whnSn pr Bedn %
am essS ssSe % he E Of MT
used IN the older instrument.
The Surrogate says he is satisfled that on the
make 9, viii. although at that time her mental
sttrSSnGtn had been seriously impaired by age.
Dr. Beden and %s to
was. therefore. liable to imposition and fraud.
and the law nresumee In such case that undue
influence and fraud were resor ed to-, In an
alyZlng the evidence about the life and habits
to this conclusion:
S date Of the SG
SsS her nina eS 81
frequent eShtbtions OF emotion which At nsS carried
~isSss'ss sSs. Beliefs sSS :!sns y sss
h:T but was % ov:n @ sussh dress
s fDS s
BY ply ysoHl wsakne'A and especially when under me
S.G "a SSdy
But she was adj: to be around her house L !: dues
ss'
proven show that they were unnecessary.
There was also evidence to show that Mrs.
Peck expected DR.. Belden to marry her. and
she mad given expression to various intentions
e hs
pone it's execution. and the Surrogate ex-
pressed his conviction tha. she was not satis;
fled a. the time with the disposition made Of
she, stated that It was not hers but Or. Bel
was brought to her by him. At other times she
said that it did not express her wishes, and
The Tsos aso U 1eaeSea neM tbe concuson
that there was fraud on DR.. Beldens part sub
sequent to the execution OF the will. In his
opinion the Surrogate says:
the spring Of 1885 tho decedent stated that she had
s T nS s o4 h % n.s
!, could not 3. found: mat pr Beidon knew whefet
s
% i 41 S HS n ans i
a As
sH 10 Dr.
sSss ss 1 S I q f
ey him eE n the c:
Tho s9i.snse warm @ frsnd.ap between phys.
clan and patient 10 not uncommon But It s generally
between those who equal stations in life. II
Is renred educated and holds high social position
il E far out OF the of human experience unless he
hsd terror. IL sinster purpose In view for
him maintain for such intimacy has been
shown in this with ignorant dssipated
and caprcious old woman. and 1t would strain ones
onia sssnme dntis. onts,de IN. s0hSre Of s nrofsa
and voluntarily under axe tho virtual guardianship
of her person and estate have doubt that DR.. |
Belden expected extrsordinnry compensaton Tor his
mentary provision That mis- opportunities
oeSsfu s shown by his presentation OF Mrs Pecks win
for probate.
The counsel for DR.. Belden's heirs said yes
terday that they should appeal the case to the |
Supreme Court