New-York tribune., 1922-10-15
Fox Case Stirs
Echo of Sl1onts
Alienation Suit
First Husband Of Defendant
Brought Fruitless Action
Against /. n. 4. Executive
Divorce Suit Reveals
Mrs. FoxLoses Her Motion
Attempt TO Turn Over $50
Fee on Changing Her
Counsel Denied by Court

The divorce suit Of Hugh Corhy Fox,
of 1870 West Fifty-seventh Street, a
wealthy dealer in railway supplies.
against Mrs. Anna Lowell Fox, reveals
the fact that the defendant formerly
was the wsse of Frederick Hipsch, who
in 1909 sued the late Theodore P.
shonts, president Of the Interborough
Rapid Transit Company, for 100000
for alienation Of the affections Of Mrs.
Hipsch. In that action Mr.. Shonts
proyed hs was sick in bed on the date
borne By a telegram which Mr.. Hipsch
charged Nr. Shonts had sent to Mrs.
Hipsch. The alienation suit was
dropped.
Mr.. Hipsch later permitted his wife
TO obtain divorce from him in Keno,
and she became the second wife of Mr.
Fox, whose first wife, Mrs. Marguerite
Hit Fox. divorced him in Reno in 1911.
In phase Of the Fox divorce case
now pending, which had to do with the
counsel Zee awarded the wife and
which was decided yesterday by JUS
tice Marsh, one Of the lawyers in the
case refyained from using the name Of
Mr.. Shonts because he was dead, re-
ferring to him merely as "a we'll known
resident of New York City" The
papers placed on file in the Supreme
Court yesterday were submitted in con-
nection with a motion by Mrs. Fox to
compel her former attorney, John F.
Cewan, former justice of the Munich
pal Court, to turn over to her present
attorney, Edward j. Reilly, counsel
fee of $3.50 paid to Mr.. Cowan, except
a reasonable sum which Mr.. Cowan
was to retain for services already rem
dered by him. Mrs. Fox said she was
without funds to pay her new lawyer.
Justice Marsh denied her motion, say
ing that Mrs. Fox could bring suit to
determine the value Of Mr.. Cowan's
services. This, she said, she did not
want to do, fearing that her former
attorney, having been member of the
Municipal Court bench, would have an
advantage over her If she brought her
suit there. Mrs. Fox explained her
change Of counsel by saying Mr.. Cowan
WAS stoo friendly" with John D. Lind
soy, attorney for Mr.. Fox.
In opposition to the motion Of his
former client, Mr.. Cowan said he had
represented Mrs. Fox in her matri-
monial troubles for many years and
Ead earned more than the $3.50 re-
ceived by him. He said that Mrs. Fox,
Wn1le Stlll Lle VILE Ol Nul. A1ipeehp SVii-
suited him regarding the alienation
suit brought by her first husband
against Mr.. Shonts (whose name Mr..
Cowan did not use).
According to Mr.. Cowan, he brought
suit for Mrs. Fox in the Municipal
Court to compel her husband to con-
tinue the payment. of $500 month to
his wife, according to the terms OF a
separation agreement. Mr.. Fox de-
slared the agreement abrogated be-
cause, as he alleged, his wife had
Jailed to keep her promise not to drink.
Mr.. Fox had barred Mrs. Fox from
their home because of her alleged ad-
t.ction to liquor. Upon her promise
Ne fbstain he took her back. After the
sefAration agreement was made Mr..
E,x ceased his payments, charging that
US wife had been seen intoxicated in
tiblic places.
Mr.. Cowan told Justice Marsh that
the resentment Of Mrs. Fox toward him
was due to his refusal to have anything
to do with collusive divorce, which,
he said, Mrs. Fox suggested might be
obtained in Rhode Island. Mrs. Fox
said that she has good defense in the
present divorce suit and was confident
her husband would not secure decree.