New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-02-14
Actress" Advances $500.

Upon being informed by another attor-
ney that the agreement she made was un-
fair to her because she was furnishing all
the money and Hitchcock and Roth were
financially irresponsible, she went to Roth
and asked him TO change the contract.
He explained that 1t was only a matter
Of form" She says that Roth then told
her that he intended 10 form stock COM
pany, in which she was to have $1,000 IN
stock lie needed 500 to incorporate the
company, which Mrs. Mum gave him.
This Statement, says the actress, was
made by the lawyer TO deceive her. ana
that so Of the money went 10 Hitchcock
Mrs. Mum alleges that subsequently
Roth admitted that he used part Of the
money for himself because he was III and
had to go to a hospital. She complained
to Roth of his alleged unauthorized use
of the money. whereupon he made fen
small payments to her and gave her "a
note for $3.50, which remains unpaid. Ac-
cordlng to the plalntif. Hitchcock got the
money intended fol- the libretto. but "a
few weeks later he took an engagement
with May Irwin and Mrs. Mum never
got her chance to appear with him.
Then Mrs Mum had more trouble.
broker. she says, converted several thou
sand dollars of her money and left her
almost penniless. Roth suggested that she
place the collecting OF this money IN us
hands lie asked as his fee half OF ali'h
collected. Then. says Mrs. Mum. Roth tod
her that he had been in communication
with the brokers' lawyer and he demand
ed q per cent Of the money recovered
With this understanding she placed the
claim In Roths hands. but he permitted
il 10 sleep" in his office, II Is alleged
until IL became impossible to collect any
thing.
Roth makes denial Of all the allegations
made by Mrs. Mum, and says that the
nroceeding is brought by another lawyer
with intention to injure his professional
standing. He says that he paid the
plaintiff all the money due her, ana ne-
scribes her charges as pigments or INC
imagination of an actress
Hitchcock makes an affidavit contrminS
the statements of the lawyer in 20 far a.
his knowledge of the affair is concerned.
Iustice Greenbaum denied the motion
of Mrs. Mum TOT inc otu'' ShS ~"
without passing on the merits OF the ac-
ton.
Mrs Grosz's Money Goes, Too.
Mrs Grosz, through counsel asker
Justice Davis yesterday for an order
corne,ling Roth to pay into court $50"
,,bich she said she was induced TO sisn
o,o,. 70 him while she was under the IN
euence of alcohol or narcotics. mo
money was one-half of the estate OF her
husband Frederick NJ. Grosz, which he
left to her.
Mrs. Grosz said that the agreement
which the lawyer induced her to sign
made him her trustee and provided that
no was TO receive one-quarter OF all tho
money that came into her possession from
tho estate of her husband. which was To
he Roth's compensation for handling the
affairs OF the estate.
Counsel said that the legality OF the
agreement would later be attacked. Roth
claims 81 900 for his services, and says
that he has expended $1,000 more. II was
also alleged that Roth did not invest the
other mart of the estate in such securities
as would be regarded as proper by ~
court
Justice Davis reserved decision.