New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-12-14
ARREST ENDS ROMANCE
Manufacturer Accused of Break
ing Promise to Girl.
BORROWED FATHERS MONEY
Engagement Merely Scheme to
Defraud, Tilted Woman
Charges in Suit.

Harry Nat Saul. a manufacturer Of
cloaks and suits. was arrested yesterday by
Deputy Sheriff Mcdonnell on an order is
sued by Justice Seabury I'm breach OF
promise suit brought by Miss Gertrude
Wolff for $4,000 damages. Saul was re-
leased on bail OF 500.
Besides the complaint of Miss Wolff that
Saul changed his mind after promising TO
marry her. there is an affidavit ny Abra-
ham Wolff, father Of the plaintiff. who IS
a clothing manufactures. that Saul did not
make his promise in good faith. but only
to defraud Wolff by inducing him TO guar
antee his accounts with certain commission
houses which Wolff did. his accOmmoda-
ton to his prospective son-in-law having
cost him about 5000 besides 81 800 for notes
Endorsed for Saul.
Saul and Miss Wolf met last January for
the first time. In April he proposed mar
rage and was accepted the charge runs
Their friendship continued up to October.
when Miss Wolf noticed a change In Saul
in his treatment of her. She said that he
became cold Subsequently II IS alleged.
Saul told Wolff that he had changed his
mind and that the engagement must be
considered broken
This brutal treatment" as Miss Wolff
. called It in her affidavit. made her sick
| mentally and physically" and made her
the subject of ridicule among her acquaint-
ances She, too. expressed II as her belief
! that Saul proposed TO her "to defraud and
cheat her father out of large sums Of
money" She caused his arrest, she said
because she feared that he would leave the
! state
Mr. Wolff. the plaintiffs father goes into
greater length in his affidavit about the
financial transactions of Saul. He tells
| also about the fine engagement celebration
! that was held. which cost him several hun
dred dollars After that occasion Woin
asked Saul several times 10 fix a definite
date for the wedding. but could not pin the
defendant down SauIs explanation was
| that his business was not in such shape
| that he could fix a certain date Finally
he named the month of January, 1872 but
without date In the mean time saul had
come tc Wolff and told him that one
cchwade. OF the firm Of Levy q Schwade'
who had been backing him. had to cease
doing so because OF some trouble between
the partners and that Schwade had sus-
eested to Saul that he ask his prospective
father-in-law to give him the financial sup
mort from which Schwadc had withdrawn.
Wolff asked what backing he wanted and
his answer was. Money or merchandise
or preferably both" Saul promised to pay
back any Indebtedness in October
Wolff. like a good father-in-law. said he
sent Saul 10 several Of the woollen com
mission firms with which he did business
and told him 10 buy materials on his ac-
coult. Tie accommodating Wolf also IN
dorsed three 500 notes for Saul. which he
will have to pay. saul paid back $3.50 OF
this money, Wolf said, with the greatest
reluctance" saying that lit made him sick
and nervous and worried him 10 have 10
pay back any Of the money"
Then Wolf called on Saul and asked him
about the coldness between him and Miss
Wolf. Saul gust explained that he had
changed his mind and that the engagement
was broken. But that is not a manly
course" said Wolf. but saul said that it
maze no difference. Won asked about
their financial arrangement How do you
purposc to pay back the money YOU owe
me?" he asked Saul said he would work
it off
There was conference at the Office oi
Samuel d. Lasky counsel for Woln, who
tried to get Saul 10 give him security for
the Indebtedness, but without success. TWO
Of tho notes came due IN Octobe" and Woln
renewed them for four months, explaining
,h., AT that time he still believed IN the
honesty Of the defendant Saul says that
under his agreement with Wolf he was no.
% nav back the money until he received
his money from the yale Of the manufact-
ured goods.