New-York tribune., 1921-06-26
stillmall Owned
Guy as His Son,
Potter Asserts
Father-in-Law Says Banker
Often Acknowledged the
Child; Will Take Stand
TO Testify for Daughter
Assails 'Unmanly Attacks
Case TO Resume Wednesday.
and Plaintiff Will Be
Heard Then or Thursday

As co-defendant in the divorce suit
brought against his mother, Baby Guy
s.illman will find his warmest cham
pion in his grandfather, James Brown
Potter, when the time comes for the
defense TO present its case at the hear
ings in Poughkeepsie. The father of
aFih" Potter will swear that James
A. Stillman repeatedly acknowledged
Baby Guy to him as his son, both in
New York and at Newport.
He has kept silent on the divorce
suit since arriving from Europe, but it
is known that he came expressly to
stand by Mrs. Stiliman and the infant
whose paternity is questioned. He now
voices his sentiments in no uncerta in
terms on his son-in-law's action. lie
accuses the banker of having left his
wife too much alone for marital hap
piness. He assails the attorney who
lsid the accusations against Mrs. Still
man before Justice Morschauser early
last March.
Attacks Nicolps Assertion
on this occasion that "Mr. Stillman be-
lieves, and the evidence proves. that
this gentlewoman married, who is the
mother of three children, took as her
lover an Indian guide and had by him
sn infant" Mr. Potter made the state
ment:
ut would appear that Mr.. Stillman's
lawyers and himself are concentrating
on their unmanly and ungentlemanlv
attack on an innocent baby and an as
suredly neglected wife.
"As for the legitimacy of my grand
sen, Guy Stillman, affirm that Mr..
and Mrs. Stillman have always ac-
knowledged him to me as their child
everywhere and at all times. in their
homes in Newport, r. l., and in New
York City. further believe that De-
lsncy N;coll's outrageous declaration
in public court to Justice Nor
sehauser, on behalf of his client, is in
complete disaccord with Mr. Stillman's
position toward me and society with
reference to Baby Guy from the birth
Of the baby in New York in November,
1918, 10 March %, 1921, when Mr..
Nicoll made the statement | have
quoted.
81 characterize Mr.. Nicoll's attack in
public court on behalf of his client
as outrageous because real men and
true gentlemen do not attack women
and children under any circumstances,
but always strive to defend them, and
because the Stillmans constituted
family which good citizenship should
defend and not seek to destroy, just as
patriotism seeks to protect the greater
family and aggregation of families.
"That my daughter was much alone,
too much alone for marital happiness,
know, but I never knew that outside
attractions in New York were wrecking
family, and the first l learned this
was so was through letter from my
daughter written to me from the Still
man country place at Pleasantville, n.
Y, and dated May l., 1920.
Nothing in this letter, or anything
which reached me while I was abroad,
hints at Mr.. Delaney Nicoll's charges;
which, even if they were true, should
never have been publicly made, for the
honor Of the James A Stillman family,
OF every individual member of it, and
Of the honorably connected families on
both sides"
Re-quoting Mr.. Nicoll's statement
before Justice Morschauser that "Mr.
Stiilmsn, from sense of duty to the
memory Of his father, to his family
and to his children intends to prosecute
this case to its conclusion" Mr.. Potter
made the following comment:
This declaration has a false ring,
because for the honor of all of those
mentioned, such accusations should not
have Been publicly made. and conspicu-
ously so by Mr.. Stillman and his attor-
aeys.
The hearings, which were to be re-
sumed before Referee Daniel j. Gleason
at Poughkeepsie on Tuesday, have been
postponed until Wednesday as a result
OF the sudden death OF John B. Stanch-