New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1922-08-01
Faversllarn PAYS
Note Fought by
'Motler-in-Law
Actor Denies Signing II
Without Permission, but
He Wishes to Avoid Fam
lily Dispute Over SO, 500
May Sue for 100000
Asserts Mrs. Opp Cost Him
$15O,OOO During % Yrs.
Residence in His House

William Faversham and his attorneys
made a joint statement yesterday an
nounclng that the actor had paid prn-
cipal and interest on the $4,000 note,
the Endorsement of which in her name
has been repudiated by the actors
mother-inlaw, Mrs. Mary Opp.
Mr.. Faversham has obtained the doc
ument, it was said, and M. Malevinsky,
his attorney, will move in the Supreme
Court to-day for the dismissal of the
actions brought by Mrs. Opp to re-
strain Mr.. Faversham and the Guar
anty Trust Company Of New York from
transferring the note and the trust
company from attempting to collect it
as against her.
The statement, issued at the Offices
of O'Brien, Malevinsky & Driscoll,
1aS2 broadway, indicates that Mr.
Favershaw's attorneys believe the case
now to be as good as settled, Mrs.
Ops restraining actions losing their
force once the note has been paid in
full. There was n covert threat, how
ever, that if Mrs. Opp persisted in liti-
cation on account of the note Mr..
Faversham might feel compelled, if
self-defense, to go to law on his own
account and demand that his mother
ln-law settle for the additional burden
Of household expenses he carried owing
TO her twenty-five years Of residence
in his home.
To Avoid Family Dispute
The expenses of the Faversham
household at 214 East Seventeenth
Street, it was said in the statement,
were added to, through the residence
of his mother-in-law with him and his
wife for twenty-five years, to the ex-
tent of at least $3.50, oOO" 1t was said
that Mr. Faversham defaulted Through
a slip Of memory" in suit brought BY
his motherin-law to recover Sill 900.
and that if the case was reopened he
would file a counter-claim for at least
100000.
1ll-feeling on the part of Mr.. Faver-
sham toward his mother -in-Iaw was de-
MED. 1t was said he held her "in the
very highest degree of esteem and
affection"
Mr.. Malevinsky said that he had adj
vised buying up the note, not because
he believed that Mr. Faversham has
signed Mrs. Ops name to it without
authorization, but in order to avoid a
family dispute.
II asked Mr. Faversham If he did
sign Mrs. Ops name without her con-
sent" the attorney said. "He imme-
diately few into temper and rage and
said MOL I told him that perhaps the
best thing for him to do was to get
experts and prepare for any fight that
Mr.. Dooling (Mrs. Ops attorney
might make against him.
Then / concluded that was bad ad-
vice and said so, for Mrs Ops at
torney could go to the District At
torney with her, she could deny that
her signature was in her handwriting
and there always would be people who
would believe him guilty. Then I told
him thought the sensible thing to do
Yves to pay the note and not fight out
any issue with Mrs. Opp"
Hostile Influence Charged
Mr.. Malevinsky said that Mrs. Opp
was "in her seventies" and had signed
many papers for her son-in-law. He
scoffed at the notion that she had
not signed the note for $500. If that
was the cause, he said, the late Julie
Opp, Mr. Favershams wife land one
OF the best and purest women ON the
American stage, deceived and cheated
her own mother and was fraud"
There could be no basis for such an
assertion, he declared.
The attorney said that Mrs. Opp was
subject to influence hostile to her SON
ln-law, statement at which Mr..
Faversham nodded assent. He called
attention TO letter Mr.. Faversham
wrote to Mrs; Opp May 1e, in which
he said: II have nothing to lose in
this controversy through publicity, but
IT the matter comes to the public
courts the answers to the complaint of
Mr.. Dooling will have to be Of such a
nature that they will cause a line of
talk that will make everybody regret
that this controversy ever happened"