New-York tribune., 1921-05-15
A. r.. Peck, 80,
Loses Battle
For 100000
Decision Dismissing Suit
To Set Aside Trust Fund
Is Sustained by Ruling
of the Appellate Division
Niece Wife Is Assailed
Woman's Testimony Is At
tackled by Son of Com
plainant by First Marriage

The Appellate Division yesterday
ney of the Supreme Court in dismiss
ing suit brought by Alonzo R. Peck
eighty-nine years old, and his second
wife, Mrs. Fannie Gahagan Peck. fifty
four, to set aside a trust deed of prop
erty valued at 100000.
Mr.. Peck, retired ribbon merchant,
who, with his first wife, occupied q
pew in the Brick Presbyterian Church
for fifty years, was offered Consul
ship by President Lincoln, which he
! rejected. His second wife was also his
niece.
Claims Made by Peck
Mr.. and Mrs. Peck brought their
action against Samuel S. Peck, lawyer
and son of Mr., Peck by his first mar
riage; Alfred E. Msrling, trustee of
the estate, and the Brick Presbyterian
Church, beneficiary under the trust
deed. Mr.. Peck said that he made the
srust deed on representations that he
was merely making a present to his
alece, whom he was to marry, and that
after his marriage he could do as he
wished with his property. He said he
did not know that the trust deed pre-
vented him from disposing of his prop
srty by will.
The deed included all his property
except $4,000 in bank and some real
estate in Yonkers. The testimony of
Mrs. Peck in the case revealed efforts
to prevent the marriage of Mr.. Peck
A meeting. to that end was held, at
which were present besides the couple
Samuel S. Peck, Mr.. Marling, the Rev.
DR.. Merrill, of the Brick Church; DR..
Clark. brother-in-law of Mr.. Peck;
Eugene Smith, attorney for Mr.. Peck,
and the family physician. Mrs. Peck
testified that Mr.. Marling said some
very insulting things at the meeting.
Allowance Given to Wife
Counsel for the defendants said the
suit was based on the "most grotesque
charges of fraud and deceit" He said
Mr. Peck inherited his entire estate
from his first wife. The second Mrs
Peck and her mother lived with the
attorney, never had more than $25
week. At a conference of the parties
at interest it was arranged that the Sec
ond Mrs. Peck should receive $4,000
a year for life and that the bulk of
the estate should go to the son of Mr..
Peck. This became the terms of the
trust deed, and it is alleged it was ex-
planned to Mrs. Peck that it was TO be
an irrevocable trust. Witnesses for the
defendant denied Mr.. Peck had been
told he could do what he pleased with
the trust after the marriage.
Counsel for the defendants told the
Appellate Division, "Her (Mrs. Peck's)
testimony . is unbelievable and his
(Mr Peck's) physical condition and
appearance on the stand we're SO pitt
able it was painful to see him and
question him, and they constituted the
strongest possible evidence of the wis
dom of the disposition of his property
when he executed the trust deed"
Under the decision of Justice Tierney
and affirmed by the Appellate Divi4
sion, Mrs. Peck will receive $4,000
year for life, the remainder of the in
come going to Mr.: Peck. Samuel S,
Peck, the son, receives the major part
of the estate upon the death of his
father and $4,000 goes to the Brick
Church. Mr.. Peck by the court ruling,
cannot dispose of any part of his
estate by will.