New-York tribune., 1910-03-11
W. B. CUTTING SUED IN ARMY AND NAVY
Former Partners s UTe
CHARGES Fraud in Ferry Deal.

C,harges OF fraud and misrepresentation
are made by Mrs. Jennie NJ. Steph Ems in her
suit against William Bayard Cutting over
transactions in the copartnership between
William < stephens, the late husband of
the plaintiff, and the defendant OF whom
Mrs. Sterhens demands an accounting She
seeks also TO set aside an agreement into
which sho entered with Cutting on Decem-
ber 3. 1903 BY this she accepted under a
misapprcheusion of the purport of the docu-
ment S1oO. 600. which she though .vas a
loan on her interest IN the copartnership.
while tho instrument really set forth that
the money was for a full release Of all
rights assigned 10 ner by her husband. Mrs.
Stephens claims about SS0O,o0O more
The property in which Stephens. Cutting
and a third partner, John ". Ambrose. xero
interested consisted of forty-three acres of
upland and 130 acres of land undcr water
bordering on Liovanus Fay. one of whose
developments was the 39th Street Ferry.
Cutting subsequently sold the ferry prom
erty 10 the city for S4666,490. L vas this
deal to which Judge Gaynor referrej in his
campaign speeches. The entire property in
volyed in the suit was sold to different piIr-
chasers for about $500, coo
The agreement OF copartrership provid-
ed that Cutting, who furnished the cap
ital 20 acquire the property, was 10 get his
money back. with 6 per cent interest and
tour-sevenths Of the profits. while stephens
and Ambrose were TO divide three -sevenths
OF tie profits. Cutting was to hold the
property until sale could be mado.
Ambrose and stephens ,re to devote their
services in the enterprise In 1884 STEPHENS
transferred his interest to his wife: lie
died in 1881. The ferry franchise was OBJ
tanned, and Cutting and Ambrose operated
It until 1922, when Ambrose died Cutting
bought all OF his interest He and Mrs.
stephens continued to own the property
until December D. 1893 when Cutting saws
he bought her entire interest for 3t2300O.
Mrs. Stephens says in her action that the
agreement by which Cutting alleges Mrs.
Stephens reln1uished her title was OBJ
tanned by fraud and Misrepresentation with
Cuttings procurement She SAYS she was
opposed TO selling the ferry separately
while Cutting wanted to do so. She alleges
that when the late Michael Cardozo.
counsel for Cutting, brought the agree
ment for her to sign she asked him 10
read IT, and he replied that it was not
necessary. The lawyer told her, she says,
that it only contained her consent 10 sell
the ferry property apart from the rest 10
which she had finally consented. She then
received 100000.
Mrs. Stephens says she placed the agree
ment in a safe deposit vault Then, it is
alleged, while Mrs Stephens was in Cali
forna, Cutting sold the property The
ferry line was sold to the city for $50 600.
Cutting had previously sold 10 the Bush
Land Company, it IS alleged. nine city
blocks. or about six hundred lots. for the
nominal consideration of 81. She alleges
that il was not until she returned to New
York that she learned the true purport OF
the agreement she had signed Cardozc
had died, and she says she was unable tc
Communicate with Cutting.
Cutting admits the agreement of purchase
with Mrs. Stephens. but denies that the
complaint states correctly the consideration
fiven FOR the property. He denies that he
made any profits from the operation Of the
S9th Street Ferry.