New-York tribune., 1919-05-14
Son Violated
Gould Trust.
Says Lawyer
Continued from page 1

under the present proceeding he would
be denied this right.
Judge Seabury began his argument
by saying that the allegations against
George Gould were not scandalous. as
he asserts, but that his acts were
Because Of the voluminous record and
the contest, he said, the accounting
proceeding could not be disposed of
for several years.
Warming to his subject. Judge Sea-
bury said that he would show, that
was pillaged and plundered," as re-
sui of which, millions of dollars were
lost to the trust benefciaries of Jay
Gould. II have never in my expert
ence," said Mr.. Seabury, "heard of
such fragrant evidence Of wrongdoing
as on the part of this trustee"
At one point of his argument, Judge
Seabury said, "Mr. Stanchfeld, a great
and astute criminal advocate, will, if
he can, distinguish between this act
and that of larceny"
Reads Law on Larceny
E. The attorney then read from the law
on larceny and continued: II submit
that he stole that profit and it's return
is no justification. If that was the
only ground we would be entitled to
prevail. The court may overlook a
technical lax Of duty in a trustee, but
it cannot overlook deliberate and pre-
meditated theft of trust funds"
This last argument had to do with
the sale by Mr.. Gould of the family
holdings of Western Union Telegraph
stock to the American Telephone and
Telegraph Company. Mr.. Gould con-
tended that as member of the Stock
Exchange he was entitled to commits
sions on the transactions. He retained
more than 100000 in such commits
sions, and paid to his attorney who
aided in the negotiation $125,O00 AT
ter eight years he turned his commits
sions back to the estate.
Mr.. Seabury said that Mr.. Gould's
conscience was aroused after eight
years, and after he had the advice of
counsel. Here was an uncontroverted
fact, the lawyer argued, sufficient in it.
self to remove Mr.. Gould. There was
nothing to send to referee, as sug-
gested by Mr.. Stanchfield.
I'VE charge George Could" said
Judge Seabury, with dominating in
fluence over his brothers and sisters
and they relied on his ability as a great
financier. Edwin Could his brother
was negative character and his sis
ter, Mrs. Helen Gould Shepard, never
was fully informed regarding the
affairs of the estate, while Howard
Gould paid little or no attention to his
duties as a co-trustee. George Gould
asserted himself on all occasions and
was in complete command of the es-
tate at all times and he seemed to
think he could do with it as he saw
fit. We say he has abused his dis
cretlon in managing it and as result
mas caused loss to it of millions of
dollars"
On the point of the six separated
trusts created by Jay Gould in his will.
which it is charged George Gould did
not carry out, Justice Whitaker re-
marked that if this alleged failure was
proved and George Gould was liable to
removal, Mrs. Shepard and Edwin
Could, co-trustees, also were, liable be" TO e,
removal. Judge Seabury agreed with
this view, saying it was q grave oues-
tion as. to why all the trustees should
not be removed, inasmuch as thew
agreed to the action of George in con,
solldatlng all, the trusts and operating
them as a unit. o
The attorney added that. Mr.. Gould