The Newtown bee., 1893-09-29
NUMBER 39

CT next presented an answer to the pe- tition, which was as follows:
 MIR BEEcHER's ANSWER.
 Probate court, district of Newtown, New town, September g, 1893.
 Petition ot John W. Booth for the removal z of Charles Henry Peck as trustee under the will of Elon Booth, late Of Newtown, Conn.,, now deceased.
 Answer of Charles Henry Peck.
 Paragraphs 1,2, 8, i and are admitted.
 Paragraphs 5. and are denied.
 So much ot paragraph as alleges that "on., the first day of April, 1893, the Court of Pro bate for the District of Newtown removed the said Peck from his position as executor and appointed Smith P. Glover of said Newtown, administrator, de bonis non, with the will an nexed ot said estate" is admitted, and of the rest of said paragraph the defendant has not sufficient knowledge or information to form a absliet--IDefendant, by ". J. Beecher, at torney.
 In response MT Davenport offered the record of the court in support of the charges. He referred to MT Peck's re- moval as executor because Of his inca pacity to further act, and thought if he was not fit to act as executor,
 NEITHER WAS HE FIT
 to be trustee and should be removed on practically the same grounds, as in the first case.
 NIT Beecher explained that the duties of a trustee and the duties of an execu- tor were very different. In the former position all that was required was to re- ceive and pay out the funds that accrued, while in the latter position there were ofttimes difficult duties to be performed. and even though MT Peck were unable to perform the duties devolving Ion an ex- ecutor that was no reason why he was not competent to
 | ACT AS A TRUSTEE.
 MT Davenport remarked that the records he considered conclusive proof and proof enough. MT Beecher pointed out the fact that the records disclosed more than the fact that MT Peck was removed, and that was, that he had appealed. After another exchange of legal compliments,
 MT Beecher summarized the case, going
 over some of the ground already covered. , He pointed out the facts that the petition
 alleged that MT Peck was removed from
 the executorship because he was wholly
 unfit to act, and wasted the estate in his
 charge.
 , HE DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS
 of the removal by this court and again referred to the case as pending in the su- perior court. He said that he should not
 be removed as trustee for what he had s done as executor, for the duties would be 3 very different. He thought this court had no right to remove him as trustee un-
 til the superior court had passed upon s the motion for his removal as executor. g The courts had proved that although
 man were removed from position simi- lar to the one in question, IT WAS NO REASON
 for his removal from other positions of t trust. MT Davenport in his turn said the same man was named as eXecutor and trustee of an estate. Can he so misuse h the funds as executor, that he can still be e a fit man as trustee? He said he did not 3, wish to be offensive, but if man had ,+ proved unfaithful to the trust as execu-
 tor and wasted the estate, he could not 1t see how the court of probate would be h justifiable in passing the funds into his 70 hands as trustee. Even were he execu- ,h tor now and the records stood as they ,r now stand, he thought
 i'd HE OUGHT TO BE REMOVED.
 The case rested here and Judge Brad es ley decided that the court would not dis
 miss the motion to dismiss the case. NIT n- Davenport then requested that the judge X act. He said that he represented all of the legatees of the estate and they were O. anxious for settlement that the boun- as ties might commence. He pointed out 1t the facts of the age and the need of the e. money by many of them and thought tho Id estate should be settled as far AS THE ExEcUToR WAS CONCERNED,
 that they might commence to receive
 some benefits of the funds. He though ny that the time had come when compe so tent trustee should be appointed, as h' ,w understood that MT Glover, the executor he was ready to turn in his account and tn en funds over to a trustee. He therefor he hoped that the prayer of the petitioner or would be granted. This closed the pro he ceedings and the court adjourned unti in- 80, when Judge Bradley gave his de ct, cision, which was as follows: ito DECISION OF THE COURT. SC, the rms peu1lol iol 1le 1, 1,-,. s,, :, elf. petition to remove him as executor. Tn
 court has passed upon those facts and fouI
 them true, and its decree stands unreverse eIf shall therefore be compelled to remove ,s-s Peck as trustee upon this petition Now as Aeo the time when this shall be done Wheth lal- to-day or one week from today. The parti MT interested under the will are in need of t on small annuities provided for them. Tn cannot get anything until the estate is settl hae and the trust commences. I hold it to be t not duty of this court to hasten the settlement ests the estate and the beginning of the trust a he this duty shall conscientiously discharge. to am informed by the administrator that he
 ready to settle up the estate and is ready hen pass over the assets of the estate to the tr' sed- tee. This being the case shall proceed ure- remove this trustee at once and appoint ]
 successor; any other course would be maxi
 this court party to delaying the beginnf
 of the trust.-[M. J. Bradley, Judge. and The case was continued until Saturda his September 30, at ? o'clock, when nex-l Peck,s successor will be named. wed Davenport said that it would be satisf' ever tory to the legatees if Smith F. Gloy .;tv. would take the trust, if he could be P k~ ccoav,< o< ;t Mr Roorhor