New-York tribune., 1922-07-12
Stokes toAppeal
Wife's 2 Million
Dover Verdict
Protests Justice Cohalan's
Decision Awarding Rights
in His $4,000, 900 Estate,
Which She Signed Away
Court Charges Subterfugc
Realty Operator Dominates
Former Mate in Property
Dealings, Opinion Holds

| Counsel for w. E. D. Stokes an
nounced last night that the Supreme
Court decision, handed down yester-
day by Justice Cohalan, restoring to
Mrs. Helen Elwood Stokes dover rights
in property valued at $6,000,O0O to
$7,000,000, would be appealed Mrs.
Stokes's share in her husbands prop
erty, If the decision is upheld, would
be more than $2,00o,000. Mrs. Stokes
charged that she had signed away her
rights at the behest Of her husband
under misapprehension due to msrep-
resentation on his part.
Under the decision Mrs. Stokes comes
into her dover rights IN forty-nine
pieces of valuable New York real cs-
tate. Included among them is the
Hotel Ansonia. Under the law she is
entitled to one-third interest in the
property.
Finds Subterfuge Employed
Justice Cohalan-s decision in sub
stance was that when the veteran real
estate operator and fnancier induced
his inexperienced bride to sign deeds
it was only a subterfuge to deprive her
of her dover rights.
Mr. and Mrs. Stokes were married
in 1911. She was Miss Helen Elwood.
Two years ago Mr.. Stokes brought
| action for a divorce, naming several
correspondents. Mrs. Stokes denied all
the allegations and countered with
suit for separation, which was granted
by Justice Finch last fall, Stokes hav-
ing been unable to substantiate any
of the charges in the divorce pro-
ceedings. Since the separation decree
Mrs. Stokes has been drawing tenn
application is pending before Justice
Finch for permanent alimony of $751;
600 year.
Two children, aged six and eight,
ere residing with Mrs. Stokes's mother
in Denver. Their custody is still in
question, pending the alimony decision.
Testimony at the trial showed that
Stokes had decided most of his real
estate to various corporations Samuel
Untermyer, counsel for Mrs. Stokes,
showed that despite this Stokes con-
tinued to hold nearly all of the stock
of the corporations.
Court Questions Agreement
In the decision yesterday Justice
Cohalan said in part:
"The parties intermarried on Feb
ruary II, 1911. The defendant claims
that the marriage proposal came from
the plaintiff; that he accepted it only
upon condition that she would enter
into an agreement to release her in
choate dover rights in his real estate
IN ba
ever he would require her to do so,
while he on his part, in addition to
marrying her, would pay her $500
month for her personal and exclusive
use so long as they continued to live
together as man and wife. At the
trial this agreement, said by the de-
fendant to have been in writing and
to have been drawn by himself, was
not produced, nor was it's non-produc-
counted for. Whether or not there
ever was such an agreement is the
real crux of the case.
The defendant says he does not
know whether he destroyed it or
whether it is among his scattered
papers. His attorneys claim that, as
it was an executed agreement, its ex-
lstence at this Tina and it's non-pro-
duction are mmnteriAl. In this /
0llIer WIN Inen. IL WAS m2ter1Sl ID
know if there ever waa SUCH IA page,
When one considers the defendants
story of his desire to protect himselt
from any dover claim under his sec
ond marriage, it seems improbable, if
there were such an agreement, that the
defendant did not keep it safely.
"The plaintiff 'uneQuivocally denies
that she ever signed the alleged agree
ment. She says there was some talk
before the marriage Of his giving her
$500 allowance, but this alone does
not tend to show the defendants con-
tention. 1t might we'll be that upon
this conversation the defendant built
his story of the arte-nuptial agree
ment"