The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-08-24
MRS.SEWELL NOWCRESFRAUD.
MAKES 4 EITTER REPLY no HER
HUSBANDS CHARGES.
Declares THAT She Was Never Properly
served Win Papers In tile Tennessee
Actio,, She says She'll Have That de-
cree Annuiicd May End Suit Here.

served with Papers IN the Tennessee
Action Rhe says She'll Have That dc.
cree Annuiicd- May End Suit Here.
Mrs. Barton Sewell, whose husband.
the vice president OF the Ameri an Smelling
and Refining Company. has secured ire m
her decree OF divorce in Tennessee, re-
Piled at length last night to the charge
that her lawyers rad demanded large sums
Of money to settle the case and told her
side OF their troubles. This Ia her state
ment:
Il was very much astonished to read In
the pa ers the false and Incorporate state
ments made by Mr.. sewell's counsel. to
the effect that efforts we're being made
by me and on my behalf to blackmail Mr.
Sewell.
1T seems to be the fashion now. where
parties are caught in the commission OF
crime. to wall before they are convicted,
that attempts are being made to black
mail them.
The inference that may be drawn from
the wild and inooherent statements made
by my husbands counsel Is that he. the
council Is suffering the keenest disap-
pointment because he Was not able to carry
through successfully his latest attempt
ia benefit This client at my expense. To
be specific at this point. I will say that
though this same counsel, who Is 80 loose
In his charges OF blackmail, of which he
says he has no evidence and thus failed TO
move the District Attorney to action. sought
to carry through an agreement with me for
the purpose Of making that provision to
which am lawfully entitled, as Mr.Sewelrs
wife by the terms Of which certain securities
belonging to me under q trust agreement
with a trust company OF this city. were
to be replaced by securities OF less value
and stability, and the difference in the
market value OF the two stocks, to be
obtained from a sale OF my securities.
was to be paid over to me In satisfaction
OF my claim for support. That is to say.
I was to pay myself out Of my own securi-
ties.
-Mr. Sewell and his counsel were not
quite 30 successful on this occasion a. they
have been on others when attempting to
damage me. When l discovered the way
in which Mr.. Sewell and his counsel pro-
posed to pay me out OF my own securities
I repudiated the whole matter. Immedi-
ately afterward both Of my sons. whose
dependence upon their father is perhaps
the only excuse for their attitude, called
to see me and pleaded with me to make
an amicable settlement and not to take
legal proceedings against him. as 1t would
ruin Els reputation and would injure his
prospects for the presidency OF the Ameri-
can Smelling Company. which he was most
anxious to obtain.
sOf course l could not accede even to
the pleadings Of my sons that l should per-
init such monstrous outrage as this fraud
Tannp9aAp divorce
decree to stand against me. Not satisfied
with nv refusal, my oldest son wrote me
q letter dated Aug. 3, 1905, begging me 70
make an amicable settlement with his
father.
troubles seems necessary. in order that
the enomity OF the conduct of Mr.. Sewell
and his numerous hirelings may be apPre-
ciated. l was married to MIR. Seweil IN
Chicago on Christmas Day, 1873. and, by
the way l was not a waitress a. the time.
Chicago very happily until 1899, when we
came to New York and took up our residence
at the Waldorf. The following summer
went abroad with my two sons. On my
return learned Of Mr.. Sewell's conduct,
which became worse and worse. until, on
my return from a second trip to Europe.
In the summer Of 1901 he deserted me, and
was compelled to institute suit against
him on that ground in the Supreme Court
OF this State. p.
final judgment In that action was entered
in my favor. adjudging that he had de-
serted me and had failed and refused to
contribute to my support, in which action
his present counsel. Henry j. Mccormick.
was his attorney Of record and appeared
standing this solemn decree Of the Supreme
Court OF this State which Is still in f. II force
and effect Mr.. Sewell instituted an action
for divorce against me at Knoxville. Tenn,
on November a. 1904. the complaint In
alleges that l had wilfully and maliciously
deserted him and had contracted the habit
of habit,ial drunkenness and that he had
been a resident Of Tennessee for two years
past, although at that very time he was
residing at the San Reno Hotel in New
else than in New York city since we came
1T became necessary to have the hear
ings take place in the evening at an Office
at Knoxville, Tenn, and at a time when
there was no term OF the court: ana as service
prejudicial to the success OF the proceed
ing this formality was dispensed with
and a notice was published in labor or
eanization paper at Knoxville purporting
to call upon me to defend the suit: At this
time was in Europe, having sated from
New York on the 2sth Of July, 1904. Two
days before sailing Mr.. Jones OF the firm
Of Jones d Mccormick, Mr.. Sewell's at
torneys then and now, called upon me
and gave no hint Of the step which was after
ward taken in Tennessee, though l noticed
by one Of the papers this morning that it
was said that had gone to Europe for the
purpose Of evading service OF papers.
sWhile was In Rome, Italy, In the month
of February, 1906 learned through friend
of the institution Of this action in Tennessee
l returned to New York for the purpose
of having this decree annulled, and en-
ployed as my attorney Charles C. Lock-
wood OF this city. l had supposed that
this decree would be set aside and annulled,
but having ascertained, as ! have men
toned above that the provisions Of the
agreement drafted by my husbands at
torneys purporting TO make arrangements
for my support did not contemplate the
annulment Of this Tennessee decree, l
became dissatisfied and desired to have
other attorneys substituted for me in Mr..
Lockwood's stead, and l caused a motion
to that effect to be made in the action for
absolute divorce brought in my name in
this State. Aside from Mr.. Lockwood and
his associate counsel have had no other
counsel in this matter except the counsel
representing mo n present
sNether I nor any attorney in my be-
half ever made any demand upon Mr..