New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-07-16
MRS. S. B. ARMOUR SUES|
Charges Former Companion with
Theft of $4,000.
PLANS NO CRIMINAL ACTION
Accused Woman Says She Can't
Remember Where Property Is
Mrs. Armour Skeptical.

Kansas City, July l5.-Mrs. Margaret
Klock Armour. widow Of Simeon b.
Armour the packer, fled suit in the Circuit
Court here to-day for $4,000 against Miss
Harriet Byington to cover populations al
legged 10 have been made by Miss Bying-
ton while serving as companion and house
keeper TO Mrs. Armour.
The first intimaton the public received
concerning REGULATIONS from Mrs. Ar
mour came about three months ago. when
a story was published that $4,000 in bonds
and securities had disappeared from her
safety deposit box at the New England
National Bank. OF this city.
The fact that the majority OF the busi-
ness Of Mrs Arnours household was con-
Quoted by Mrs. Armour's companion,
nurse and housekeeper, and the fact that
this companion held the keys 10 Mrs
Armour's safety deposit box was men
toned, but the name OF the companion
was kept secret Mrs. Armour refused to
believe any charges against Miss Bying-
ton. Meanwhile new discoveries increased
the amount OF missing securities until the
Armour attorneys stated 1t at $4,000
Under pressure brought to bear by
friends Of Mrs. Armour and despite the ex-
pressed confidence Of her employer Miss
Byngton several days after the discovery
of the populations confessed that during
the three years she had been in Mrs. Ar
mour's employ she had from time 10 time
extracted securities from the safety deposit
box and sold them 10 brokers on the pre-
tence she was doing It for Mrs. Armour,
who desired the money for private chart
ties In explanation OF her purchases Miss
Byngton usually said she was making
them for a brother in South America. No
trace OF this brother has ever been found.
Il believe this suit is brought merely TO
take Miss Byington's deposition, said Jo-
seph B. Stacey, Miss Byington's attorney.
Mrs Armour IS anxious to learn where
the other property il, and | believe the
purpose OF the suit is merely 10 force Miss
Byington TO tell how she disposed OF II.
do not believe criminal suit viii follow a
civil one"
IL would work my hands 10 the bone II
/ could thereby recover all the property
that | took from her" Miss Byington SAID
to-day. Mrs. Armour was my friend and
would never have taken the things II
had not been temporarily demented. IL
there is any other property left to be dis
covered ! can be Of no help. for ! can re-
call no place in which I have hidden 1t.
Mrs Armour in an interview to-day said
she had no desire TO bring criminal action
against her former friend; that she was IN
terested merely In recovering her money.
The fact that Miss Byington H. woman
should be no protection 70 her MIS- AT
mour said "a woman should suffer for
Illegal acts equally with a man. Miss BY
ington should be punished 10 prevent
repetition Of similar affairs. But / DO not
wish 10 prosecute the woman who was
my friend. and ! win not bring criminal
prosecution against her, though. perhaps
the county and state authorities VIII feel
that II Is their duty 10 see that laworeak-
ers are punished. All l want TO do now II
to recover my money.
II understand the main point 10 be made
bv the defence Is that Miss Byington had
weak mind and that evidences OF luxury
unsettled IT, that she has no money or
bonds belonging 10 me now in her possess
sion: that she has spent all the money she
has not restored, and that her poor mem
DRY does not allow her to remember where
or when she made her purchases.
These statements l know TO be false.
Miss Byington's memory always was a re-
markable one and her mind is lucid The
story that she could have forgotten what
she did with my property is laughaole TO
any one who knows Miss Byington.'
Miss Byington, who is thirty-ive years
Old. came from Rochester Before enter
ing Mrs. Armour's employ, about three
years ago she was trained nurse. Mrs.
Armour paid her S75 a month as her com
panion. The latter is seyenty-siX years
al