The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-12-17

stated that he had looked the matter 1 up and had gone over the accounting I and had decided that he would not re- l fund the $75G as he had promised. He i further stated that he had made an 1 error in computing the inheritance tax 1 and that the state should have re- | cefved $10O0 or 200 more than the 1 amount which had actually been paid. | IT. Said Peck threatened said resid- uary legatees that if they were not | willing to allow his approval of this | item he would call in another judge | of probate and have the matter heard
 and that he would then manipulate the
 matter by appeal and otherwise so as
 to hold the estate open for several
 months longer.
 l 1s Said Peck then offered to over l look his error in computing the inner 1 itance tax and allow the estate to be
 settled on the basis of the account as | filed if said residuary 1egatees would
 waive all objections to his receipt of
 said fee of $750 and produced docu- ment which he had already prepared
 which was, in fact, waiver of all ir 1 regularfties in the matter of approV-
 ing said charge of s75o and further waiver of all rights to appeal from the i settlement of said account.
 19. The said residuary legatees, in | huenced by the efforts and coercion of | said Peck, and believing that they had | and delay likely to be caused by said
 Peck. signed said waiver and allowed said Peck to retain said sum of $750. 20. In addition to the item above quoted, amounting to 40, the said | Peck had taxed for his probate fees l and included the same upon the credit side of said account the sum of $12s.65. 1 21. After the circumstances above set forth, the said residuary legatees l the matter and within the time al- | lowed by law appealed from the allow ance of said account.
 P. A short time afterwards, the said Peck returned to said Phelps. as such executor, the sum of $750 and in terest thereon 9 tdsg for +5a the time during Dated Bridgeport. December Is, A. RUSSELL FROST,
 JOHN D. KELLER,
 JOHN c. CHAMBERLAIN, Committee. Following is the presentment against Merva:
 To the Honorable Superior Court within and for Fairfield County: The Grievance Committee of the Fairfield County Bar hereby makes the following preSentment and com plaint against Joseph A. Merva of Bridgeport in said county, member of the bar of said county, and alleges as follows: l. In the month of August, 1911, one Frederick K. Smith of Walling- ford, Connecticut, consulted the said said Bridgeport with reference to ob. taining a divorce from the wife of him. the said Smith, and retained said Merva to prosecute an action Tor oi- vorce against his said wife, which the said Merva then and there agreed to do. set forth in paragraph one occurred, said Smith paid by money order to said Merva, the sum of .$15.oo on ac- count of his retainer and services, ana afterward sent said Merva a. further sum of S25.0o on October Il, 1911, at the request of said Merva
 i; complaint on behalf of said Smith against his said wife claiming a dt- vorce, returnable to the Superior court within and for Fairfield county on the first Tuesday of October, 1911, and placed the same in the hands of a deputy sheriff for service on said wife Of said Smith at Bridgeport, where she resided.
 4. Said Merva after the issuance r of said writ and complaint and prior to the service thereof, changed the return date thereof to the first Tues l day of November 1911 and after ward due and timely personal service of said Smith at said Bridgeport on October 5, 1911. 5. Said Merva neglected to have said writ and complaint returned to and entered upon the docket of said Court. 6. Said Smith was informed by had been duly served and returned, and corresponded with him with ref erence to the trial of the same. 2. Thereafter at various times said Smith attempted to learn from said Merva the facts with reference to the institution and prosecution of said action, by personal visits to the office of said MerVa and by correspondence | with him, but was unable to get any satisfactory information and was obliged to employ another lawyer, l. Henry Mag, Esquire, of Meriden, to | investigate the status of his said ac- tion for divorce.
 8. Said Mag afterward in the l month of February, 1912, learned up- l on inquiry that no action for divorce | al aforesaid, between said Smith and l his wife was pending in the Superior Court either in Fairfield County or New Haven County. 9. Thereafter by personal cores | pondence and through the said Mag | the said Smith applied for informa- | tion to his said action, and de | manded the return of the money paid l by him to said Merva but the latter | failed to furnish him with truthful in 1 formation as to said action, and re- fused to refund said money and still | neg1ects and refuses to refund the same.
 10. Afterward said Smith, through l the instrumentalit of said Mag as divorce against his said wife in the | Superior Court within and for New l Haven county and had judgment of | divorce therein in the month of June, l 1912. 1
 II. By means of the neglect of | said Merva and his misrepresentations l aforesaid the said Smith was unduIy | delayed and hindered in the prosecu- | ton of his said action for divorce and | by reason of the refusal of said MerVa | to return to him said sum of S40.0O | paid said Merva as aforesaid, has been l put to great and unnecessary expense
 Dated at Bridgeport this 18th day |
 CHARLES s. CANFIELD,
 RUSSELL FROST
 JOHN E. KEELER
 Committee