The sun., 1912-07-14

WIDOW CrOSSiey IN october, 1905, by
one GeiEer. whom the widow Crossley
represented to be her secretary or man
OF business. but who later appeared III
the light Of beater up Of questionable
affairs On November IL. 1905, two
agreements by private deed drawn UP
by Oeiger were signed. by which Miss
kemper and the widow Crossley each
undertook to advance to Prince Victor
Of Thurn and Taxis q loan Of $4,000 at
the rate Of per cent"
This hrst advance evidently proved
insufficient for its object. a. a fort
night later Miss Kemper provided
$1,000 moro. and three months later, In
February. 1906. S2o.273so. The Prince
however. was still unprovided with a
helpmcet. The Countess of Glare and
Count Zoltinsky about this time In
formed Miss kemper that tho Prince
was probably about ~ marry an Ameri-
can millionaire's daughter. Such a
marriage. they pointed out to her. could
not be carried out without some ex
pense. and Miss kemper--in the hope
no doubt Of being repaid in American
gold--adyanccd In 1906 all the rest OF
the money she possessed. making a
total sum Of nearly $4,000. Not ia
allow Miss kemper to rely merely on
the hope Of American gold, Count Zol-
tinsliy gave her as security seven-sev-
enteenths Of Q manganese mine conces-
sion which he possessed in 1vanofska
Russia.
Miss kemper now penniless. awaited
the return Of her money with interest
In vain. She began to doubt the wis.
dom Of her investment and to question
the good faith Of the English Countess
and the Polish Count. and her doubts
grew to conviction. In February, 1910,
she brought the two before the Correc-
tional Court. When the case was heard
some edifyine details we're given on the
past life Of Count Zoltinsky, and wit
nesses came forward to Identify the
Countess Of Glare as a certain Blanche
Leigh. once a pcrfumery seller in the
Rue de 10 Paix.
The Countess protested against these
statements and brought witnesses to
testify to her integrity and that Of the
Count Zoltinsky. and In April the two
were acquitted. But Miss Kemper was
not satisfied at this end Of her invest
ment. She took the case to the Cor
rectionAl Appeal Court. where It occu-
picu tIucc ucotitA8o duu
delibcration before judgment was given.
As may be gathered from the quota
ton already given from this judgment
II upset the lower courts verdict Of ac
quittai and condemned Zoltinsky to two
years In prison. with Q fine of S400 and
the widow Crossley-a republican tri-
bunal disdains to recognize titlesto
one year In prison and a fine Of 5000
II requires Zoltinsky to refund to Miss
Kemper all the money she advanced
but considering that the widow Cross
ley's cooperation with Zoltinsky had
only been established with respect to
money advanced up to February, 1906,
the court ordered the two accused
Jointly and severally to repay this
amount. S39.472. II also condemned
them to pay $1,000 damages. and with
the thoroughness that always marks a
French sentence 1t granted ''constraint
Of body" which means that IL the money
Is not paid the complainant can have
them arrested and Imprisoned. The
findings which preccde the sentence In
the judgment show that Zoltinsky. the
widow Crossley and Geiger had made
a combination to find a wife for the
Prince In return for q 8 per cent. COM
mission on the marriage dowry.