Evening star., 1926-04-09
PETER PROTESTS
INQUIRIES IN SUIT
Consents to Temporary In
junction Pending Decision in
S2.30O,OOO Case.

Armistead Peter. ir.. owner Of
Tudor Hall and prominent in society.
today asked the District Supreme
Court to relieve him from an
swering certain interrogatories pro-
pounded by counsel for his wife,
Mrs. Anna w Peter of Dobbs
Ferry. y. Y, until the wife has
established her right TO have posses
sion of the s. 800 900 worth Of securi-
ties for which she has asked an ac-
counting by him. The husband de-
ferred answer TO the rule to show
cause until the time for answering
the suit expires. April 10,
Through Attorneys Frank j. Hogs n
and Arthur Peter. the husband told
the court that while he thinks the
wife's petition fails. TO set up sufficient
grounds for an injunction to be grant
ed since IL does not charge that he
has alienated or attempted TO dispose
of any of the securities and jewelry
named. he was willing that tempo
rary injunction shall be granted. and
such A restraining order was signed
by Chief Justice Walter !. Mccoy.
Under such temporary order he Is
enjoined from disposing Of the securi-
ties. which. Mr.. Peter says, are intact
nd which he expects TO hold within
the Jurisdiction of the court. to await
final decree in the wife's suit.
Defends Right 10 Silence.
The interrogat Of Attorneys
Minor. Galley & Rowland of Wash
ington and Williams. Myers, Quiggle
& Breeding of New York. for the
wife. according to the husband, are
premature and might we'll be in or
der after decree establishing the
rights of the wife, hut not before
such determination. These questions,
instead of having for their purpose
securing of facts to aid the wife in
her suit. as required by court rules,
say counsel for the husband. clearly
are intended to learn the location
of the securities and jewelry for the
purpose of obtaining by writ of re-
plevin possession of them before the
court passes on the question OF. their
ownership, custody and admihistra-
tion.
AS the suit Is between husba nd
and wife. counsel for Mr.. Peter point
out. he is competent. but not COM
pellable. to testify and to require him
to answer the interrogatories would
be to require him to give evidence
for or against his wife in civil pro.
ceedings in violation of section 1868
of the District code. He therefore
asked to he relieved from answering
any of the proposed questions re-
lating to the whereabouts OF the jew
elry and securities and when he re-
moved them from a safe-deposit box
Of the American Security and Trust
Co.. where they had been placed in
the joint names of husband and wife
No Answer Filed.
Counsel for Mr.. Peter called the
courts attention to the fact that Mrs.
Peters bill did not charge that Mr..
Peter had sold. pledged or removed
from the District any of the stocks
and bonds which she claimed. The
attorneys further pointed out that
there was no charge whatever that
Mr.. Peter threatened to do any of
these things and, therefore, there
was no basis in the case for any in
junction IL they wished to oppose the
issuance Of one. However, Mr.. Hogan
told the court. SO long as the suit
brought by Mrs. Peter is pending 1t
is the intention of Mr.. Peter to hold
intact within the jurisdiction OF the
court all of the securities listed in
his wife's bill. The lawyers said that,
in view of that fact. an order of the
court restraining the disposition of
the stocks and bonds and keeping
them In the District would not only
not he Objectionable but would be en-
tirely agreeable to the defendant The
injunction was, therefore, agreed to-
No answer was filed today to Mrs
Peters bill and 1t was stated by the
attorneys for the husband that
formal answer would probably not
be presented to the court until
April 10.
Attorneys Hogan and Peter, at the
same time that eys-consented to
the issuance of temporary injunc-
tion, presented to Chief Justice Nc
Coy objections to FIVE interrosatories
which were served on Armistead
Peter, jr.. by counsel for Mrs. Peter.
BY the interrogatories the plaintiffs
counsel asked Mr. Peter to state
when the stocks and bonds. which
are the subject of the suit. were
removed from boxes in the American
Security and Trust Co., rented in
the name of the husband and wife.
to what places the securities were
removed, and where and by whom
they are now held. In the objec-
tions presented to the. court today
Continued on Page 4. Column IL