New-York tribune., 1919-05-17
Certain Gould
Dealslmproper,
Says Stewart
Guardian of Grandchildren
Is ssNot Opposed, Not in
Favor of Petition for
the Removal of George

A dramatic feature yesterday in the
Supreme Court proceeding to remove
George J. Gould as trustee of his
fathers estate was the expression of
concurrence by William A. W. Stewart,
guardian ad litem for George Gould's
grandchildren and for his two minor
children, Gloria and Edith, in the allie
CATION that Mr.. Gould had acted i'm
properly in some of his transactions.
"Not opposed, not in favor" was the
way Mr.. Stewards attitude was re-
corded in the court minutes on the
petition OF Frank ]. Gould for the re-
moval of his brother.
Mr.. Stewart said he did not believe
the interest of his charges would be
preiudiced by the retention of Mr..
Gould as trustee. He also said the
trustee now before the court if re-
moved would be succeeded by his
brother Frank, and that this could not
be regarded as an advantage for the
children.
Some Investments Improper
AT the opening of the present pro-
ceedings Mr. Stewart told the court
he was uncertain just what his att-
tude ought to be. Yesterday the Gould
children's guardian was ready to make
known his position. So far as the al
legged failure of George Gould to create
separate trusts for the six children of
Jay Gould, his father, was concerned,
Mr.. Stewart said there was no ground
for removal. Some investments by Mr..
Gould, he agreed, however, undoubted-
ly were improper, although he did not
believe bad faith was shown The guar
dian said he would seek to have all
losses to the estate. by improper in
vestments surcharged against Mr..
Gould when the accounting was taken
up. He believed certain technical
points of the law were violated and
that there should be a surchargc.
AS to the acceptance by Mr.. Gould of
$4,000 commission on the sale of
the estates Western Union Telegraph
stock, Mr.. Stewart said, at was un-
ouestionably very serious and i'm
proper action and it would probably
justify his removal"
Mr. Stewart characterized as "a most
highly improper action" the alleged
mingling by George Gould of the
estates funds with his own specnla-
tive accounts. If he represented INV
other branch of the family. said NJ
stewart, he would favor the removal
Of Mr.. Gould. "''A'
Doesn't Fear George Gould
justice Whitaker asked: "Do Won
.nink the interests Of your infants will
be in jeopardy by George Could r..
raining?"
! do not" said Mr. Stewart
rormer Justice Samuel Seaburv. in
oanaif OF Frank Gould, returned to the
attack yesterday in rebuttal of state
ments by John b. Stanchheld and
William Wallace, Jr., in behalf of
George Gould. Justice Seabury took
Issue with the assertion that the estate
nas not been imperilled by the alleged
actions Of George Gould and that tbe
ia''e1 eould meet any claim made
against him.
There has been nothing brought
ont, ne said, "to show George Could
could pay surcharge Of S26 900 600
except an beneficiary Of the estate"
Hsierring to. the statement OF Mr.
Gouid's counsel that the estate TO-DAY
~ worth from s7s,000,0o0 TO 37b 600
600, Judge seabury said, ut Id cer-
tainly no argument that the estate Il
worth less to-day than it was twen4y-
ak years ago"
Embezzlement Charged
This act established the existence
OF enbczzlement," said Justice Sesbury
OF Mr. Gould's action in taking COM