New-York tribune., 1922-01-28
Court Denies
Mrs. Stilln1an
Extra $500
Justice Morschauscr's Dcci-
sion Granting Her More
Funds to Get Evidence
Reversed i'm Brooklyn
Charges Not Repudiated
Appellate Division Points Out
Neither Banker nor Wife
Has Refuted Allegations

Tho recent decision OF Supreme
Court Justice Morschanscr IN White
Plains granting Mrs. Anne Urquhsrt
Potter Stillman AT additional $500
for expenses In defending the divorce
suit brought By James A. Stilman.
baker, was reversed yeste rday by the
Appellate Division o. the Supreme
Court in Brooklyn Tho court ruled
unanimously, which prevents higher
appeal without permission OF the Ap-
rcllate Division.
Justice Rich wrote the opinion. which
vas concurred in by Presiding Justice
Blackmar and Justices Kelly, kcihy
snd Young II was held that Mrs.
5ti,lman already had been given suf-
icient funds for her defense. Her own
statement that she needed only 5000
for the expenses Of her recent Cana
dian investig cations wss quoted and the
court held the sum Of $500 as awarded
ny Justice Morschausor vss excessive.
The decision said
"The plsintifF charge that Guy
Stiilman. a son born 20 the defendant,
x illeg;timatc. The defendant is en-
.ted to an opportunity to present any
evidence which may teud to defeat the
allegation against her. and T she is
Without means to carry on her defense
ne court viii require that The plaintiff
provide such funds as orc reasonably
necessary for the purpose. providing Il
made 10 appear ,ha' sbc had mcri-
.orious defense.
Neither Denies Misconduct
Tho law imposes the burden upon
ner of showing. first that shc has
meritorious defense and second. that
she 5 not possessed Of sufficient funds
20 defraY the expenses.
"l1 determining whether the defense
r.tcrposed is meritcrious tnc court is
not required to decide tho merits of
the controversy 1t Is enough # tho
wife presents case from which ii may
DC inferred that She has substantial
defense to the cause Of action alleged
against her.
In determining this que ton rc-
course must be had to the pleading.
and the striking condition IS noted that
While the plaintiff and defendant each
set forth pleading in which they
uavo verified The misconduct alleged
against the other with par'lcularjty.
neither the plaintiff nor the defendant
ras spec ticaly made verified de
NAL of the allegations Of his or her
own misconduct.
"I think the allegation in winch the
defendant make counter charges Of
miscondGct against her husband meets
the requirements Of sa tsfving the
ceur. that there is rea sonablc ground
TO believe that the defendant has 4
nleritorious defense. surely IF she sue
c"eds in maintaining tho charge by sat
sfactory proof, She viii defeat his
cause of action
Huge Sum Already Paid
There has already been PAID to the
defendant for counsel fec q greater
sum than most people arc able TO ac-
c,muats in lifetime Of toll Never.
tholets, am not prepared 70 say 80
iong a no mutual friend has seen tit TO
intervene IN view Of the eminent couu-
se that has been rotalned. that thc
amount Is unrea> onablo. but am vn
able 70 find amy evidence that tho dc
'ondsn. 20 without means 10 pav the ex-
penzes Of The inquiry which rs proposed
10 be conducted iu Canada. Since
April e. l9.l. she has received on &C.
count Ct aitmou} $500 monthly.
',5,OuO FOR counsel FEC aud Sl2.5oO f6r
e1nonsos
-" hi'c It sproerr that the cNpcndi.
t.:'A have exceeded tno allowance fo,
-Apenses 1T IS not made to aRpoar tha
tre defendant Aa- rot in haud suaicient
'ands with which 20 meet these oN-
Ecnses and the ordc1 Of the learned
court at speeial term must be reversed
10, this reaso
iheye & another reason VIII, the
rfdef caa0of oe sustained. II appears
lfNA t.c 81 fati' OF which II is ha cd
..iAi ~r'ciis's.n's urcsont reQuiromort
10 'p'nees ~I'i amount st least Ia
s'v1u Ihe soiA alioMc.i Wa <, 500
he learned corr' Wust hare iutcndc. d.
u fNofloo for .hc raymcut of past cy
'--sl9. v nlNlL ~ NOT he nnn, :,