The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-12-17
DISARMAMENT or. JUDGE PECK AND ATTY. MERVA FAVORED
 BY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
UnfavorabIe Findings Against Accused Cause Stir in Legal CirCIes--TeM of Com
 mittees Findings in Each Case

of his office judge of probate are made against Charles H. Peck, fol several terms representative from Stratford, by the grievance committee of the Fairfield County Bar in a pre- sentiment filed today with the clerk of the Superior Court. The complaint, which is the outcome of recent sQuabbIe between Judge Peck and the heirs of Susan M. B. Perry, of Strat- ford, cites instances of alleged glarlns malpractice on the part of the court official The filing of the complaint today caused a big stir in legal circles in this city.
 Simultaneously there were filed charges against Attorney Joseph A Merva, of this city The grievance coramittee alleges that he withheld re- tainer fees from client in a divorce case when he had ia led to have the writ and complaint filed in the Supe- rior Court Charges have been brought against Attorney Merva previous to this time
 Both cases are returnable to the Su- perior Court on the first Tuesday in January At that time. both lawyers they should not be disbarred and the prosecution of the cases will be in the hands Of the states attorney.
 Charles S. Canf1eld, a member of the grievance committee, does not appear in the charges against Judge Peck. as he is disqualified because of the legal advice of the firm with which MT Garfield is connected John C. Cham Derla1n was designated Dy the Superior Court to act in his stead
 The complaint against Judge Peck follows in full:
 To the Honorable Superior Court with
 in and for Fairfield County:
 The grievance committee of the Fairfield County Bar econsisting in this instance of Russell Frost, and John E. Kee1er, regular members thereof. and John c. Chamberlain, spe- cially appointed by the Superior Court to take the place of Charles s. Can 47a16 fAnr cd In ma harR- by makes the following presentment and complaint against Charles H. county, and alleges as follows:
 1 Said Charles H. Peck is now and for more than two years last past has been judge of probate for the district of stratford, and a member of the bar of eaid county.
 a On or about January, 1912, the will of one Susan M B. Perry was proved and admitted to probate in and by the Court of Probate for the dis tHct of stratford- Said Peck then held said Court Of Probate as judge there of, and as such judge continued to act in all the proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate.
 and performed no acts connected with the administration of said estate ex- cept in his capacity such judge
 f. The residuary legatees in the will of said deceased were her three chill dren, Nelson B. Perry, Francis w. Perry and i3e6 IsaReae & M, Beech fd 9nd i91 as as
 
 receive all of the residuary estate of the deceased
 5. It is provided in and by said will that any succession, legacy or trans fer tax imposed upon said estate should be paid from the residue there of. thereby freeing all legacies not Yesfduary from such taxes.
 S. Tn the early part of the month of August, 1912 the said Isabelle M. aforesaid, was requested by said Peck to meet him at his office and discuss the condition of the estate prepara- tory to making a settlement thereof. a day or two afterwards, the said Isa- belle M. Beach called at the office of of the conversation which was then had between her and said Peck, was informed by said Peck that claim had been made on behalf of the state that certain Iegacies to benehcent and charitable institutions, in said will named. were liable to inheritance tax such taxes would amount to $1,250; that he, said Peck, and the executor of the will had agreed that it was best to employ a lawyer and get the pay 1nent of that tax off; that a lawyer had been employed for that purpose and had succeeded in procuring the exemption of the estate from taxes to that amount; that the lawyer had charged $500 for his services and had effected a net saving to the estate of e450 which he, the said Peck, thought was doing very well.
 S. 4 few days afterward the said Peck made a statement of like tenor and import to Nelson B. Perry, one of said residuary 1egatees-
 g. The executors accounting in said estate was prepared under the direc- ton of said Peck and by him trans ferred to William H. Phelps, the ex- ecutor of said will, who resided at winsted. Conn, for the completion of the same by the addition of certain items not known to said Peck
 10. Said account as made up by said
 
 the court and an order of hearing made thereon fixing August 29, 1912, as the day of settlement for the same in and by said Court of Probate
 ii. Copies of said account were fur nished to each Of the residuary 1ega- tees.
 account furnished to him, the said Francis w. Perry, one of said resid- nary 1egatees, noticed as entered in the credit side of said account an en- try in the words and figures following, 70 wit:
 fees travelling expenses and all
 other incidental expenses connect
 ed with the settlement of the es-
 tate. s9s3. .40.''
 1s Said Francis w. Perry inquired of said Peck who the attorney was who had been employed and finally in reply to a direct question asked if he rPecI1O was not the attorney. He, the said Peck, admitted that he was and that the fee had been paid to him. The said Peck was unable satisfactorily to explain the nature of the services rem tered by him for which said charge ,Tas made Said Nelson B. Perry was also present at this interview
 15 The matter of said attorney was then further discussed between the said Peek and the said Nelson B. Per ry and the said Francis W Perry, and finally Peck agreed to refund to the residtIary legatees said sum of $75O-
 1s. On August 2e. 1912, upon the day appointed for a hearing upon the al- IeTance of the executors account as