New-York tribune., 1901-01-11
CALLS CASTELLANE A SCAMP.
MIR. UNTERMYER ALSO TELLS THE
COURT HE HAS LEARNED THE
COUNTESS is INSOLyENT.

In Special Term, Part 1. Of the Supreme Court
yesterday, Justice Beach heard arguments in the
attempt of Anton Dttmar. assignee of an indebt-
edness OF sS7TOoO asserted to be due to Asher
Wertheimer, an art dealer of London from Count
Boni de Castellane and the Countess de CasteIane
TO have continued an injunction restraining the
trustees of the estate of Jay Gould paying to
the Countess de Casteare any OF the income from
her share OF the estate.
Mr.. Untermyer. counsel for Mr.. Dittmar. pre-
sented a long affidavit from Mr. wertheimer which
said in part:
II, hrst BECAME acquainted with the defendants on
Bnndst 1872; b at my pace OF business No Io4 New
interviews at which purchases were made.
Then follows a detailed list of the times of pur-
chases and the articles purchased. The affidavit
says that payments not made as agreed on.
but that extensions were granted condition that
the Count and Countess give their joint acceptances
for the amounts owing. This was done: but even
then the bills not paid he says except that
there were occasional small instalments. Mr..
Wertheimer added:
Save for the acceptanees held by neither the
Count nor the Countess has given any security for
the payment of the sum owing by them, and they
from me- very few Of which are now in their pos
session.
Many letters annexed to Mr.. wertheimer's
affidavit, in of which. dated January g. 1900
the Count explains his visit to this country a year
ago. The letter says in part:
TO
ing affirmative replies which were not followed bv
execution, l have decided to take my affairs into
Therefore desire to get rid Of Certain Furniture
own and to sell certain securities. undivided be-
tween all the Goulds, which have the right to
realize on in America. This is why 1 start to
return to Paris by February 10.
Mr. Untermyer in arguing for the motion said
that the decision on the application would prob
ably determine the action. the defendant trustees
had raised three technical objections which If
of the plaintiffs suit The first that the codici
the say 6aT o his % dlreced &c that the income from
Was entitled should be paid to her irrespective of
Sene proHded hst no for
by the Beneficiary While in the hands Of her trus
tees II @ this provision was upheld no part even OF
debts incurred by, the Countess de Casteiane
seb MEL ssttlsd this
resident Of Of Paris since her marriage and had not
when she came here for the OF arranging
in this suit could not be served upon her
fraud. and declared
In this transaction Count Castellane shows him.
WIl 1s b mean Snd th3roHghgong SCAMP can
back furniture which we have expressed our mr.
to that Ve Seizures are are fRn nS rnm Ras the the
when he 5urehed he ene r0e %ers M alleged to belong
Colonel James. in replying to Mr. Untermyer.
said that the original affidavits on which the in
June junction was granted had not much of what was
Untermyer replied
The only difference between the amended COM
PIaint and the original is that. having since we
Drougnt our action learned that the Countess de
CastelIane's debts amounted to 100000 and
that she was tnsolvent We ask that her allow
ance be cut down 100000 a wear instead OF
ceive. -
Colonel James in opposing the motion denied
that Mr.. Dittmar the real party in interest
naffh
against the Castellanes nor the acceptances given
10 Mertheimer. He held that the court was with
out Jurisdiction over the Countess de Castellane
ana without power TO determine the part of her in
come necessary for the support of herself and
chlidren. lie said that even though the court had
jurisdiction. the will Of Mr.. Gould would prevent
the collection Of the debt
Decision was reserved