The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-10-14
CLIENT SUES
HER LAWYER
Mrs. Leila Nissan Seeks an
Accounting From Grant Squires
HUSBAND VANDERBILT HEIR
She Charges That The Attorney Made Un-
safe Iuvsstmsnts ana Also Rsialnsd
Part Of The Profits.
HUSBAND VANDERBILT HEIR

New York, Oct A.-Grant Squires. an
attorney who was the New York govern
ment censor during the Spanish war. Is
accused OF making secret profits and un-
safe investments while acting as trustee
in a suit brought by Mrs Leila III. b.
Nissan. who In separated from her hus-
band. nephew OF William II. Wander
blt and one OF his heirs.
Mrs. Nissan asks an accounting Of
duced her to allow him to invest, and the
privilege of examining his books and
papers that she may ascertain to what
extent she IL entitled to damages.
She also demands that the lawyer as
sumed tho investments made in her name.
which she declares unsafe. Putney.
Twombiey e. Putney, her attorneys. be-
gan the action in the supreme court sew
eral days ago. and Mr.. Souires In his
answer denies her allegations in detail.
Mr.. Squirss and Mrs. Kissam became
acquainted In Syracuse and were socially
prominent. Mrs Kissams father is De
Witt Clinton Brown. who later came TO
New York and lived at s43 President
street. Brooklyn. Her maternal grand
father was Judge James r. Lawrence,
one Of the founders of Syracuse.
Mr.. Squire's mother was also OF SYRIA
cuss and his father. Robert sQuires. was
at one time president Of the Third Ave-
nue. Street Railway company. During
the Spanish war Mr.. Squires censored
all the cable dispatches sent and received
in New York. He Is q graduate OF
Columbia Law school and a member OF
the Union League club.
WANTED SEPARATION.
- November q 1895, Mrs Kissam was
granted a separation from her husband
as the result of an action brought by him
on the ground OF abandonment She
was allowed $1,000 year alimony. set
aside from the fund OF $4,000 left her
husband by the will of William II. Van
derbilt, and the custody of their young
son. Clinton Brown Nissan.
The testimony heard by George c.
Branke. as referee, alleged that Mr.. Kis-
sam was an habitual drunkard and that
II was impossible TO live with him. 1t
declared that shortly after their marriage
he had left her TO pay a hotel bill OF
Sl10 and had several times been an in
mate OF institutions for the cure of the
liquor habit.
Mrs. hlssam aHeReS IN ner complaint
that Mr.. Squires told her he had many
opportunities to lend money which would
bring her I'm FIVE and a half or six per
cent interest on mortgages. that he was
skflful In these matters and lent only to
the amount of 60 per cent of the value
of property on -aEst mortgages.
Thereupon 1t appears In the papers. she
turned over to him at various times be-
tween 1896 and 1901 s29.0 900. which he in
vested. 1t is over these investments and
the returns from them that the litigation
has been begun Several of the in
stances are specified and IL is TO obtain
as to the others that an ex-
animation OF the defendants books Is
asked
HER ASSERTIONS.
Mrs. Kissam states that on January
20. 1897. she placed in his hands $500.
which he lent TO Margaret Ryan, taking
as security two mortgages on Nos. 2406
and 240s Hoffman street. She declares
her belief that he retained a portion of
this money. The mortgages were fore
closed and the property was bid in. She
declares IL was not worth the amount
IL cost that Mr.. Squires did not act in
good faith and that he conducted the
transaction for his own profit.
In October. 1897. she declares, Mr..
Squires lent 81. 900 OF her money to Ho-
mer Bartlett on the property at 236 West
1920 street. which was already mortgaged
for $4,000 and the taxes OF which were
overdue representing n 10 her as worth
$4,000. This transaction, she also says,
was connected with a secret pront.
This property was also bid In at a fore
closure sale and proved loss TO her, she
Gays. 1t was finally conveyed TO Eliza
Murphy in return for mortgage for
$4,000 and property at 3N West ll6th street,
which also proved a loss 10 her as an in
vestment IL was finally disposed OF TO
Franz X. Wagner. and In this transaction.
as in others. she declares Mr.. Squires
did not turn over all OF the money he
received.
In his reply Mr.. squires declares that
he acted In good faith and for the best
interests of his client. that each trans
action was made after Il had been fully
explained 10 her and that from time 10
time he made a full accounting OF all
money received.