The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-07-15
DIVORCE FEE
$4,000, SAYS
W.GUGGENHElM
Samuel Untermyer Got Big
Sum for Work. Accord
ing to Affidavit.
OTHER LAWYERS SUE
FOR $4,000 BALANCE

FUN NsV.VVV DA liza ME-
william Guggenheims story OF the
circumstances under which his first wife.
Mrs. Grace Wahl Guggenheim. was in
duced to divorce him in Chicago In
1901, which divorce she later sought TO
have annulled on the ground that it was
fraudulent. is told for the first time in
District Court here in II suit brought
by Chicago attorneys to recover for pro-
fessonal services.
In his affidavit Mr. Ciuggenhe i'm as
serts that the arrangements for the d.
vorce were all made by Samuel INTER-
myer. to whom he says he has paid
fees amounting to more than $65.000
for his services in the original divorce
suit and In the subsequent proceedings
when his former wife sought unsuccess-
fully to have the decree vacated. The
statements have bearing on the dis
barment proceedings now pending
against Louis Werner. who acted as at
torney for Mrs Guggenhem in the di-
vorce suit
The application for the disbarment
of Werner was made by the grievance
committee Of the Bar Association and
the case has been pending for nearly
year before Allan McCulloh, APP
pointed referee by the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court. The proceeding
was delayed through the refusal of Mr..
Guggenheim to answer all questions re-
latins Ia the arrangements for the di-
vorce. and II was necessary for the Bar
Associations counsel to apply TO the APP
pellate Division to compel him TO an
swer fully. The court decided that the
questions were pertinent. and IL Is ex-
pected that when he is examined his
testimony will be along the lines set
forth In his affidavit.
Balance of 100000 sought.
The suit OF the Chicago attorneys was
brought by Stepnen =, Gregory, Conrad
II. Poppenhusen, Joseph L. McNab, Ed
ward II. Johnston and Tsppan Gregory,
members of the Arm of Gregory. Pop;
penhusen & McNab. against William
Guggenheim and his brothers. Daniel,
Isaac, Murry, Simon and solomon r.
Guggenheim. The complaint stated that
between January I. 1913. and June !.
1914. the plaintiffs rendered professional
services in the proct edings to vacate
Mrs. Grace Guggenhe.ms divorce decree.
which were of "A reasonable value of
$4,000. The complaint admitted that
$4,000 had been paid and asked for the
balance of s20,O0o
The plaintiffs asked for a jury trial of
the suit and in February last took about
800 typewriter pages of testimony in
Chicago, the chief witness being stephen
s. Gregory, head of the firm. When the
case was about ready for trial a settle
ment of the action was made by William
Guggenheim's brothers without consult
ing him, and the plaintiffs applied for an
order disseminating the action.
William Guggenheim, through his
counsel. William A. Redding. filed the
affidavit referred to with Judge La
cOmbe in connection with the application
for discontinuance. At the outset he ex-
planned that his brothers are "unfriendly
and hostile to him." and said that on
February Il. Is and 10 last "volumin.
Gus depositions' We're taken in behalf of
the plaintiffs in Chicago and that Har-
old Nathan appeared there as his coun-
sci and cross-eXamined the Witnesses
Mr.. Guggenheim said he incurred an
expense of more than $500 for the ser
vices and expenses OF his attorney and
that during the taking of the dispositions
voluminous correspondence was produced
in behalf of the plaintiffs, which was
merely marked for identification and not
put In evidence or filed in the case, He
believes that such correspondence is In
~ In Of h. nj INT
sci.
Gives Outline Of Evidence.
Mr.. Guggenheim said he was advised
by his counsel that the dispositions and
correspondence show that large part
%. the services rendered by the plaintiffs
for which they sought TO recover were
not rendered for his benefit and were
not authorized To be rendered by him
He said he had no information as to the
terms of the settlement of the action
made by his brothers, but that he has
good defence to the action as against
himself "as will appear not only by said
depositions and correspondence but also
by competent evidence he is able to pro-
duce to prove facts as follows:
About November rs, 1900, he mar
ried "A woman then known as Grace b.
Herbert but never lived with her.
that ne could not live with her and did
rot intend to do so and a few days
thereafter consulted Samuel Untermyer
who was then counsel for the firm of NJ
Guggenhem's Sons, of which firm he
and the other defendants were members
and then told Samuel Cntermyer OF his
marriage to this woman and of his re-
fusal to live with her and authorized
him to pay her, from time to time. such
reasonable sums of money as she mi hit
need for living expenses,
'Soon afterward. in 1901, he sailed for
Europe, and In February, 1901. while he
was In Europe. Samuel Untermyer ca
bled him that il was necessary for him
to return home. and he returned immt-
diately and called on Samuel Unter-
myer who then informed him that the
woman he had married would obtain a
divorce from him II he would follow the
Instructions Of Samuel Untermyer. Sam
Chicago at "A certain time and to give
cause for divorce. and he did so.
Samuel l'ntcrmyer gave him the name
of Mr.. Newman of the firm of Newman,
I.evinson, Becker Il Cleveland as the
counsel in Chicago to whom deponent
should go upon the service of papers
upon depOnent.
xI5O,OOO for Ills wife.
"The papers were served on deponent
I'm Chicago several days after his ar
rival In that city, and he delivered them
to Mr. Newman, as instructed by Mr..