Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-04-01
HUSBAND CLAIMS FACTS
WERE MISREPRESENTED
Was Deceived, He Says, as to Profit
Firm Was to Make.
WIFE NOT A PARTY TO DEAL
Makes Affidavit Denying the Whole
and Every Part Of the Plain
tiffs' Claim of Her Joint
Liability.

Edward e. Mclean and his wife,
Evelyn Walsh Mclean, daughter OF the
late Thomas f. Walsh today answered
the suit recently filed in the Supreme
Court OF the District of Columbia by the
firm OF Cartier. New York jewelers.. 10
recover $1sO.ooo. the purchase price or
the supposedly ill-fated gem. the Hope
diamond.
Both deny any liability 10 the jeweIry
firm on account Of the purchase of the
diamond. Mr. Mclean admits he car
ried on individual negotiations with
Pierre c. Cartier. but charges that the
latter made Misrepresentation TO him
concerning the value OF the jewel. and
that he was induced thereby to accept the
terms Of an agreement TO purchase. a
copy Of which appeared in print at the
time Of the filing of the suit, and the
verbiage OF which is all in the singulso
number.
Mrs. Mclean declares the diamond was
left at their residence on Massachusetts
inspection. and denies that she individu-
ally or Jointly with her husband, pur-
chased the Hope diamond and the neck
lace attached to it. II there were subss-
Quent transactions relating to the pur-
chase Of the expensive bauble. Mrs. Mo-
Lean IN oath AYERS she was not a party
to them, personally or otherwise.
Terms Of Alleged Contract.
The firm OF Cartier sued both Mrs. No
Lean and her husband, naming the wife
as the principal defendant. or at least at
tempting to hold her equally liable with
her husband for the $4,000 sought to
be recovered. They claimed that they
were to receive $4,000 in cash, an emef-
aid and pearl pendant valued at $4,000.
now owned by Mrs. Mclean, and the
balance OF $4,000 was to be paid In bi-
monthly installments covering a period OF
three years. -
Through Attorneys Wilton +. IAn!oert.
Joseph j. Darlington and A. S. Worthinc-
ton, the husband. Edward B. Mclean. in
an affidavit attached to his plea, denies
that he is indebted as claimed to the firm
of Cartier. He declares ne never dealt
with the firm in reference to becoming
the owner Of the Hope gem. He admits.
however, that he did accept the terms
of an agreement to sell proposed by
Pierre c. Cartier individually, but pleads
that he should not be held to this agree
ment because of alleged misrepresenta-
tions on the part of Cartier. who claimed
to be a diamond expert.
Mr.. Mclean says he was induced to en-
ter into the agreement by three alleged
representations said to have been made
by Cartier. The latter told him, he says.
/
purtenant necklace were reasonably
worth from S250.00O to Ss0o.OOo; that the
diamond had been purchased from GER
tain French syndicate for such a sum
that a. resale for $1SO00o would give
Cartier no profit: and that the diamond
had never been sold or offered for sale
for less than S1SO,oU.
Says Jeweler Misrepresented.
Mr.. Mclean tells the court that he has
no special knowledge of the value of
diamonds. and in agreeing to the pur-
chase he relied wholly on the representa-
tons named above. and would not other
wise have agreed to make the purchase.
He declares he has reliable information
and expects to prove at the trial Of the
case that the three alleged representa-
tions "were false. and that Pierre G.
Cartier we'll knew them to be false when
he made them"
the Carriers bought the diamond from a
French syndicate, and that the sale at
the price asked of the McI|eans would
net the jewelers. the handsome pront OF
$lOo,OOO Mr.. Mclean also claims that
prior to January 2S last the diamond
he'd been sold for a sum not in excess OF
$4,000.
Corroboration of his wife's claim that
the jewel was left with them for i'm
spection only is contained in the affi-
davit of the husband. Mr.. Mclean also
exonerates his wife from liability by
declaring under oath that the subse-
ouent transactions with Pierre c. Car
tier in regard to the diamond were
with him alone. His wife, he AYERS.
had nothing to do with them person.
ally or otherwise.
Diamond in His Possession.
Edward b. Mclean in concluding his
affidavit Of defense tells the court that
he is advised by his counsel that un-
der the circumstances mentioned he
is not bound by the contract obtained
by the alleged misrepresentation. even
il it were not subject to other OBJ
jections (not set forth) on its face. He
has heretofore, he says informed the
plaintiffs that he repudiated the con-
tract and he has rendered back to them
the so-called Hope diamond and ap-
purtenant necklace, but they have re-
fused to accept them The jewel and
necklace, he concludes. are i'm his pos
session. subject to the order OF the
jewellers.
The New York firm which seeks to
hold Mr. and Mrs. Mclean to the al
legged agreement to purchase the Hope
diamond and to have Judgment against
the husband and wife for $1S0,0O0 10
represented by Attorneys Brandenburg
& Brandenburg and Clarence W. Mo.
Knight.
Mrs. McLean's A66davit.
The 1fl1davit OF Mrs. Mclean reads:
II, Evelyn W. Mclean, on oath say
that am one Of the defendants named in
fhA shoYe entitled canse ana 4l..