New-York tribune., 1913-07-31
UPHOLDS COUNT IN LAW,
BUT CONDEMNS NOBILITY
Surrogate CohaIan, DlSmISSlng
D'ArsChOt Will Contestants,
Hits "Fortune Hunters"
SNOBBISHNESS, NOT FRAUD
Court Holds That Countess,
Having Lost American Ideals,
Naturally Favored Titled
Nephew's Pretensions.


The nobility in general and Count Guil-
laune d'Arschot. secretary TO the CABINET
of the King of Belgium, and his late aunt
the Countess CASTOR d'Arschot. in par
ticular. were the subjects of caustic com
= ment in n decision handed down yester-
day by Surrogate Cohalan. admitting TO
probate the will Of Countess d'Arschot
which mad been contested by several ot
her nieces and nephews. The surrogate
views were occasioned by the written
admissions of the Belgian official that ne
was desirous of marrying for money
which he finally did and to the aunt $
| exaggerated veneration for titles ana
trappings of nobility"
Countess d'Arschot was Miss NilheI-
mine Detmold before her marriage. She
died February q, 1912. leaving an estate
valued at $4,000. About one-third OF TINS
: she left to Count d'Arschot and Joseph
! De Tours Lentihon. nephews, and Minnie
! l.. Crook. a niece. The contestants trled
To prove that the countess was under the
undue Influence of her titled nephew and
that he and Lentilhon had entered into a
conspiracy TO induce her to dispose Of her
propcrty as she did They also alleged
testamentary hcapacity Both Of these
grounds the surrogate decided were un-
tenable. Therefore the VIII was upheld.
But Surrogate Cohalan did not permit
To pass without judicial notice Count
d'Arschots letters 10 his aged and inhrm
aunt. declaring that the count therein
| showed himself 10 be "A typical European
| fortune hunter. desIrous Of bartering his
title Of nobility for money and not caring
where the money came from The court
said Of the testatrix that she was one OF
| that class Of American eXpatriates 10
whom the title Of nobility Is the great
criterion Of honor, virtue and high social
position"
The surrogate said. The testatrix did
| not make Count d'Arschot one Of the chief
objects OF her bounty because OF any
| fraud or undue influence practiscd by him.
| but because years Of habit and "A life of
! long departure from those sterling princi-
pies Of democracy that are supposed To- 6"
so charactcrisucally American had
| caused her to dearly love lord. Do
The contestants made an unsuccessful
effort 10 prove that she made a later will
| I'm which she changed her testam'ntary
! dispositions. In 1905 there was tempo
rary difference between aunt and nephew.
| AS the surrogate said the suitable mar
! riagc of the count seemed 90 have been
the subject uppcrmost iu the mind Of
| Countess d'Arschot The decision said
! ..rhc countess seems 10 have been afraid
! that the count would marry one Of the
common people, or only the daughter N
business man. and the count was nav
ing difficulty I'm finding woman sum
clently aristocratic 10 please his aunt ana
N the same time sufficiently rich To meet
his own needs" The count had written:
III I ever marry II Will be a matter OF
money and nothing else. Let time bring
a golden baboon who is nice
count d'Arschot married the daughter Of
Nubar Pacha rich Egyptian statesman.
The count figured the fortune at from
forty to nifty million francs. and told his
aunt that there was a dowry Of million
and half francs with eight to ten
millions more later on"
Countess d dArschOt was not IN favor OF
this marriage. and from 1905 TO 1911 Count
d'Arschot wrote feryid letters to his aunt
! beseeching her 10 reinstate him in her az
| fections. which she finally I'D. The count
wrote about two hundred letters. Surro-
! cate Cohalan said. Some OF the counts
letters are more like the fervid appeal Of
an infatuated lover than the letters OF a
young man to his uncle's widow. who had
| taken an Interest In Lis future"
Surrogate Cohalan continued: IF she
were the kind OF woman who wor-
shipped a title and permitted herself to
be Influenced by one who possessed the
scme title that she acquired by her own
marriage. and she was pleased to receive
the grossest and most extrayagant fiat
terry and adulation from the possessor Of
that title how can II be claimed that such
Influence was undue influence In the legal
sense OF the term"