New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1921-07-14
Counsel Offers to Accept
Evidence of Relations
Will, Mrs. Leeds After
Witnesses identify Him
Trial Continues,
AS Defense Asks
Banker to Admit Divorce
Suit Is Lost; Continue
Fight on Guy, is Belief
Fyons g ssaff correspondent


Counsel for Mrs. Anne Urquhart Still
man had hardly launched her defense
at the resumed hearings before Referee
Daniel j. Gleason to-day, in the action
brought by her husband. when terms
Of armistice were offered on the di-
vorce issue.
At the afternoon session Colonel
William J. Rand jr., counsel for the
banker, startled the assembled attor-
neys by disclaiming the necessity for
any further evidence being offered as
to the alleged relations of his client
and Mrs. Florence Lawlor Leeds. He
sdded that the evidence already sub
mitted BY the eight witnesses who
testified to-day would not be con-
tradicted. When asked point blank if
ne admitted adultery on the part Of
Mr. Stillmsn he said he would admit
nothing.
Wife Determined to Go On
Counsel for the defense insisted on
continuing their case on two grounds.
!. That there was no actual adn,is
son OF adultery on the part of the
plaintiff
2. That Guy stillman's interests
might be completely protected tn
reIe-ee sustained the defense ana
to-mo1row the presenta ton &C Mrs.
Su!!maas side OF the case will
be resumed. This unexpected develop
n.eAt, however, was taken to indicate
tFaf the night mas narrowed down to
the legitimacy issue. 1t is further re-
garced as virtual admission by tie
plaintiff of all the charges CONCERNING
tie fnancier and Mrs. Leeds.
In the course of the day eight wit
resses testified in substantiation OF
the charges against MIR. Stillman and
the former show girl. Three identified
q photograph Of the banker as being
the man known to them as Franklin
Harold Leeds. AS the different wit
negses ted their stories, counsel for
the banker made no move. They did
rot attempt to shake the narratives by
eioss-examination. As the session.
was nearing an end Colonel Rand said.
"Yeur honor. please, | object to the
introduction OF any further evidence
as to the adultery of the plaintiff. 1t
now appears by the evidence that he
occupied an apartment at Cd East
Eighty sixth Street with one Florence
Leeds and he was known as Franklin
Harold Leeds; that on two occasions
he was seen sleeping in bed with Flor
ence H. Leeds; that he accompanied
her to various places; that he was
seen carrying the baby in his arms in
and out of the building; that in De-
cenber. 1916, he opened bank account
III her name as Miss Florence H. Leeds
and informed the banker that if the
aecount became short to notify him;
tsat the account did become short and
he was notified and the account was
Immediately made good; that at Res
Court, Stony Brook, L. L., he lived
With Mrs. Leeds as her husband, where
he was known as Mr.. Leeds and where
he personally paid the chauffeur who
Has employed there.
Will Not Dispute Finding
Now, if your honor is ready. upon
al this evidence to make a finding of
adultery against the plaintiff and are
ssatlshed from the evidence that there
Is no collusion, we wish to state that
this evidence will not be disputed or
contradicted and ask that your honor
d'rect that no further evidence is re-
CURED as TO the adultery of the
Plaintiff.
And in view of our statement we
ask that all additional evidence as to
nls adultery or as to the identity of
franklin Harold Leeds, be excluded
There being sufficient evidence to prove
one adultery. AS we frankly state that
We will not attempt to contradict it,
no occasion exists for adducing further
proof except to satisfy a prurient
public. think it is an insult to the
Intelligence Of the court to offer any
further evidence along this line"
Astonishment was reflected on the
races OF counsel for the defense. Colo
1eI Rand had barely finished before
John +. Mack, guardian ad litem for
s1uy jumped to his feet with the ques-
plaintiff %
We do not admit anything" coun-
tered Colonel Rand. 1--WE state, how
ever, that no attempt will be made by
.ae plaintiff to contradict or impeach
we evidence as to adultery, and if the
eppfe is satisfied by the evidence of
sae adultery of the plaintiff and that
10 coilusion exists the evidence on this
score should be closed. Satisfactory
eslaence of one adultery, so fer as this
case is concerned, is just as Inclusive
ss 'ne proof of fifteen adultoy.es."
psohn T. Brennan, chief counsel for
ts' Stlilman, stated that. i'm. much as
sse Plaintiff did not admit misconduct
pna the evidence might well be passed
spOn by the Appellate courts, the de-
Continued on pace siO