The Newtown bee., 1893-04-07

1 pointed as his Successor.
 The decision in the appeal for the re- moval of Ex-Town Clerk Charles Henry l Peck from the executorship of the Elon Booth estate was given by Judge of Pro- bate Bradley on Saturday, April l, at l o'clock in the morning at the probate of flee. Those present were John W. Booth and son of Hartford, Davenport & O'Hara of Bridgeport, Mir Belfield of Southbury, Edward Booth, D. W. Bron- son, George H. Botsford, Eli J. Morris and Charles H. Peck, all of Newtown. Judge Bradley ordered MT Peck's remov- al and subsequently, appointed Smith P. Glover as executor. Following is copy of Judge Brad!ey's decision: In the matter of the application of John W. Booth and others for the removal of Charles | H. Peck, executor Of the will ot Elon Booth. Upon the hearing of this case before me, gave attention to the evidence and the argu- ments ot counsel and have since read over very carefully the stenographer's minutes, and am now ready to give my decision. l It appears that Elon Booth died in Mar ch | 1890, possessed of an estate which 1nventol1ed l $l58,00O. He left will, in which, after direct 1 ing that his debts be paid, and a monument be erected to cost not more than $5o0O he dis posed of his estate in the following way
 The estate was to be settled by the execu- tor, and then the funds remaining were to be paid over to trustee to be held for the term l ot II years from the time of the settlement. Out of the income, the trustee was to pay certain yearly sums amounting ill all to $2O00 annually, to his sister and sister-in-law and the children of his.dead brother, ,Orville Booth, | if they were living when his estate was set tied. These sums were to be paid to them for the period of IA years from the time the estate was settled, but if any ot them died In the meantime, his annuity was to cease and his share of the income was to be added to the principal of the estate. At the end ot IA years from the settlement of the estate, the princi- pal of the estate with all its accumulations was to be divided among the grandchildren of Orville Booth and the adopted daughter ot his sister, Mrs Brinsmade, who should then be living, in equal parts.
 His sister and SiSter-in law ladies Of 7 very advanced years. From this statement it appears that the annuitants were only to get their shares if they were living when the tate was settled and that their annuities not to commence until then. Also the people who were to take the principal of the estate would get nothing unless they were alive H years after the settling Of the estate In eith- CT case the postponement of the settlement of the estate would be very serious injury to the persons who were to take under the will. Each years delay meant certainly 5000 loss to the annuitarts and might possibly deprive them, and those who were to take the princi- pal, of all benefit from the estate Under such circumstances it was plainly the duty ot the executor to hurry up the settlement of the es- tate as fast as possible and any unnecessary delay would be very wastetul and wrong. I have always understood that the law expect ed promptness on the part of an executor in any case, but under the unusual provisions of this will think that unnecessary delay would not be consistent with good faith in the exec utor.
 find that MT Peck took charge of the es- tate in 1890, that he waited a year before he represented the estate insolvent; that anoth- CT year spent in hearings before the com 1llssloners and that he took an appeal to the superior court from their allowance ot the claim of Gregory, Ballou & Co.,, where it now stands, waiting it's turn. The net result of it all is, that the executor has already deprived the annuitants of $40OO which they never can receive and has perhaps deprived them, and those who are to take after them, of all bene- fits under the will, and he declares his pur- pose to continue this course until such remote period as the case may be finally ended. Ac- tion like this could only be justified by some strong reason which showed that the interest of the estate required him to take it.
 It appears that the will controversy was ended within year from Elon's death, and that nothing had prevented his proceeding with the settlement of the estate in the mean time, so tar as getting in the claims against it, representing the estate insolvent, and hay ing the judgement of the commissioners with in that year. IS understand it, he had this right even if the will had been set aside, so that I cannot see why the executor could not have been ready to settle his account at the end of year from Elon's death, and certain ly if he could have been ready it was his duty to do so in view of the provisions of the will. The hearing before the commissioners on the claim of Gregory, ,Ballou Co.,, was most pro- tracted, and after full examination it seems that the commissioners who had been select ed with great care by this court, allowed it substantially in full, when the consequences ot delay must be so injurious to the annui tants and other persons, do not think the ex ecutor would have been justified in taking an appeal considering the amount of the claim even if it were doubtful. But the finding of the commissioners is to me pretty conclusive evidence that the claim was just. I must con less cannot understand the reason the exec i it to protect himself and his bondsmen. I had always supposed that the finding of com missioners under the circumstances of that case, was sufficient protection to the exec utor in making payment of claim. But when consider the great costs to the estate ot the litigation already had, the bills for which are even now not all in, but tor which the exec utor has paid over $20,000, and the prob- able costs ot the future litigation, think that ' plain common sense should have taught the , executor that the interests of the estate re- ], quired that he should not take an appeal, and when it appears that before the case was end : ed before commissioners or even argued, the executor instead of ascertaining whether the claim could be compromised with advantage to the estate, was employing additional coun- sel for the sole purpose Of fighting the claim in the superior court, and that he now de- clares his intention to presist in fighting it to the end. It seems to me that conduct so un- usual, and so costly, and so plainly injurious to the interests ofthe estate, was in bad faith
 It seems to mo also that the appeal from the commissioners on the estate of l.. B. Booth taken by fhe executor,eve if successful after long litigation, is bound to result in no profit to the estate of Elon Booth. But on the con 7 trary will be source of great expense, and that the executor has proceeded most unwise
 ly in that matter, prOtracting as it must the settlement of the estate of EIon Booth to the great injury of the annuitants and legatees
 Under my understanding of the will there is no foundation for the executor to make this claim against the estate of l.. B. Booth. The f,fo