The evening world., 1919-10-30
RECORDS DISPROVE
CLAIM NO. 8 MADE
FOR UNTERMyER
Court Papers Show Tamnany
Candidate Never Appeared
in Neary VS.. Gould Case.

for the Supreme Court bench. the
case OF Noay VS.. Gould has been
reached.
Neary VS.. Gould was No on the
list of cases which Mr.. George Cor
don Battle supplied. " may be re-
called that MFR. Battle was asked for
a list Of the cases In which Mr.. I'm
termyer, the younger. had actually
appeared in court. After waiting
thirteen days the fact that the list
was not forthcoming was published
Then Mr.. Battle gave out the list,
saying that all the cases in which
Mr. Irwin Unternyer had appeared
IN court were not mentioned.
II is. OF course, barely possible that
Mr., Battle did not mean to include In
the list the case OF Neary W.. Gould,
for the records fail absolutely to dis
close any mention whatever. in any
Connection, OF the participation or ap-
pearance OF Mr.. Irwin Untermyer. He
made no afiidavits, asked no uues-
tions, drew no briefs which he signed.
II he was in the court room at all the
court failed, as did the stenographer.
20 take Official cognixance OF that fact.
LAWYERS AZ NAMED IN COURT
RECORDS.
Complaint was filed April, 1918, the
hrm OF GugRenheimer, Untermyer a.
Marshall appearing for the plaintiff,
Neary. who sued George Gould and
others to recover ;i27,12s. In Deoem-
Der OF that year Justice CohalRn. be-
ing n policy holder of the Equitable
Life Assurance Society. which was
an interested party, refused 10 hear
nn nf 90
Untermyer Irwin Untermyer's father,
trial was ordered before Walter &.
Noyes, appointed as referee.
The records of the case on flle In
abe County Clerks once show that
the hearings held before MIR. Noyes
lasted from Dec. "a. 1914. to June,
1915. The decision of the referee
was appealed from by the plRlntiffn
and was taken 10 the Appellate Di.
Vision. where a complete record of all
appearances, together with all testi-
mony taken before Mr.. Noyes and all
subsequent actions preparatory 10
taking an appeal, were submitted as
q record OF the case.
At each hearing before the referee
the appearances of counsel for both
sihcs were noted by the official STE
ncgrapher and at no time II the name
OF Irwin Untermyer mentioned. The
TWIN Nuo u1hJOIlN1 vi
stances, Appearances, uuggenheim-
or. Untermyer Il Marshall, by Sam
uel Untermyer. for the plaintiffs" Oc-
casionally. when Samuel Untermyer
was accompanied by another attor-
ney from his firm, the record reads,
''Quggenheimer. Untermyer a Mar
shall, by Samuel Untermyer and A.
l.. Benedict. for the plaintiffs" and
on one or two occasions by Samuel
Vl.lr
wire" but not once does II read by
Irwin Untermyer" or 'by Samuel
Untermyer and Irwin Untermyer for
the plaintiff."
The name OF Irwin Untermyer Is
not found, even upon am davtts sub
mitted by the Arm Of Guggenheim
Untermyer a Marshall The two am
davits submitted by Samuel Inter
myer in support OF his case are
aigned, one by Arthur M. Wickwire
and the other by Abraham I. Bene-
dict.
IRWIN UNTERMYER NOT MEN.
'TIoNED AT ALL.
The brief submitted by the plaintiffs
TO Referee Noyes at the conclusion of
the hearings in June, 1915. was signed
by Samuel Untermyer. Arthur NJ.
Wickwire and, Abraham Benedict OF
There are several places In the
papers where the name OF "Guggen-
heimer. Untermyer and MARSHALL has
bean written in ink In the space al
iotted for the signatures OF the coun-
sci Tor the plaintiff, but there Ia no
way OF telling whether II Is In Irwin
Uatermyer's handwriting Or whether
Il was done by n clerk.
IL the list. that Mr.. Battle prepared
NnNe 10
Scofeid. making II appear that Irwin
Uhtermyer had appeared In court In
four separate actionR- 1t appears
however. that the actions were sub.
etantiaIly the same. Mr.. Battles two
items Matter Of Scofield" and Matter
OF Soofield" ware 90 closely ihterre.
lated with Scofield vs. Fftzsimmoni
and People ex rel. Schoheld We. Sur,
rogpts OF Kings County that even {
youthful and brilliant Judge would b,
unable to treat them as separat,
cases.
The best information a. 70 thii
case was secured from George X
Shields, a lawyer OF No. 80 Broa
Street who was an associate OF JohI
Wifiett. attorney for Mr.. BcofeId. Nj
Shields declared yesterday that Irwi
Untennyer had taken no leading pAy
in the trial OF the main action, that 9
Dconeld Vu. t1txAmmonB. In that &C
tien. according 70 Mr.. Shieda, Abra
ham Benedict OF GuggenhAim, Uni o.
niger a Marshall, was the trial attoI
ney. and while Irwin Untermyer ar
psAred In court with him Il was NJ
20 plead the case but 70 look after an
mark papers
The action was brought by a grand
ngn of Scofield 70 annul the marrlaS
cG his grandfather with Mrs, Jea
y1tGsimmons Soofleld a few hours bt
fore his death on the ground thu
80ofeld. who was eighty years ol
1T the time. did not know what !
vas doing when he married. on h
death bed, a woman about thirtI
three years old.
Mr. uNTERMYER EXPLAINS !
ANOTHER CASE.
While this action was pending Nj
Do0lieh applied, through her a
forneys. 10 the Surrogate for lette
of administration on the estate. Til
vas known as the Matter OF Scofiel
and required no other court actl,
than the Ming OF papers. Later
an ex- parte action Mrs. Bcofeld WI
appointed temporary administratri
Whether this iy the second Matt