The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-04-28
GUGGENHEIM, ACCUSING BROTHERS OF A FRAUD.
 IS SUING FOR MILLIONS

Refining Co., in Pueblo, Col. In 1891 he went to Mexico to assume the
 management of the Guggenhefnl min ing and sne1ting interests in the Re- public He is credited with the con structiOn of the lead smelting works 1 at Monterey and the copper smeltins ; works at AguascaIientes
 Withdrew About 19O. An authorized biography of MT. l Guggenheim records that his Mexican management terminated in 1901, when all of the Guggenheim interests were 1 more closely merged. The complaint in the present action states that he withdrew about 1900 with the full consent and approval of his co-part-
 ners'' from active participation in the i firm of M. Guggenheim Sons. The coolness between William and 1 the other sons seems to have had it's origin about that date. It. is a coinci- | dence perhaps that on Nov. 3, 1900, 1 William Guggenheirn was married se- f cretly to Mrs. Grace Brown Herbert, 1 who became known subsequently, as
 Mrs. Grace Brown Guggenheim WehL 1 They were married in IIoboken. The 1 romance is said to have started at a meeting in the Hotel Wa1dorf-As- toria. In 1901 Mrs. Guggenheim obtained | a divorce in Chicago. In subsequent i proceedings she alleged that she brought the suit by persuasion of the 1 Guggenheina family William Gug- genheim settled $15O,0OO on her in lieu of a1imony. In 1908 she married Jules Rogers WahI:
 Early in 1913 Mrs. Wah1 started proceedings in Chicago to set aside her divorce decree on the ground that it had been obtained by. fraud and collusion. Chief Justice Baldwin in Chicago ordered an investigation of the divorce proceedings. In July the circuit court of Cook county refused to set aside the decree.
 Sued for Back AIfnony.
 Last July Mrs. wahI started a suit in the supreme court here against Isaac, Murry. Solomon and Simon to compel them to carry out the terms of an alleged agreement by which she says she was to receive back a1imony amounting to $42,oo0 and $500 a month for life.
 William Guggenheim filed motion for discontinuance of the action on the ground that his brothers are un- friendly and hostile to him. He made affidavit that in the original divorce action he had paid more than $65,0o0 to Samuel Untermeyer as counsel fees.
 
 the present suit, which formed the basis of yesterdays argument, dis closed that for 1 O. years William was practically a frank outsider in the Guggenheim ventures. The complaint says he remained a partner in M. Gug- genheim Sons and is liable for any in- debtedness, but the brothers reply that his withdrawal in 1900 was regarded by them as permanent. Both sides admit that from 1901 to 1911 Will liam was not in touch with the busi- ness of the partnership.
 In the latter part of 1911. the com pIaint says, William Guggenheim de- cided he wanted to re-enter the firm and communicated his desire to the .'tIae defendants thereupon expressed 3. desire on their part that the plaintiff should so return to active participa- ton and cooperating in the under takings of the 1rm.''
 They welcomed him back and were glad to have him. was the way the youngest Guggenheim' lawyer put it in the argument yesterday. The brothers, both in their papers and in the rguments of MT. Guthrie and MT. Marshall yesterday, denied the well come back into the fold.
 His Position After His Return.
 The complaint goes on to recite that w 11itbIL1, LOlIOW HIS 1S~A1 W oS9 eNS-@ signed to the management of the In. ternationa1 Steam Pump company, of, which he is now chairman of the board of directors. By assuming this task, he asserts, he was prevented from acquiring a knowledge of the activities of the firm in various other enterprises"
 One of the various other'' enter prises ,sof which William says he was in ignorance was the "ChuquieaInata Prospect This is a copper mining and smelting venture that takes it's name from a district in Chilli. It lies on the Pacific coast, near Antofagasta- The Guggenheims are said to have purchased a large part of their prop erty7 in that district from Albert c. Burrage of Boston.
 According to testimony of Daniel Guggenheim given in Boston in July, 1914, in a suit of Louis Ross against MT. Bhrrage, Burrage wanted to make a cooperative arrangement with the Guggenheims, but Daniel said they told him that the reason the Gug- genheinns had been successful in their business was that they had never talk en outsiders into their corporations.''
 The brothers concealed from Will liam, so MT. Baldwin stated before Justice Benedict yesterday, the fact that prior to 1912 they had made ex- tensive surveys of the Chuquicanata district and that the reports had promised large returns from the en- terprise!
 TT Hau