New-York tribune., 1922-10-29
Still1l1an Loses
Again, but Will
Go Step Higher
Justice Sceger Refuses to
Review Decision Favor
able TO Bankers Wife;
Up TO Appellate Division
Paternity Issue Involved
Findings of Referee Gleason
Will BE Attacked i'm Cours
of Wider Jurisdiction
Prom a stan cerrsanondenf


Stillraan is now ready to challenge the
dndfDgs Of peferee Daniel j. Gleason
IN favor of Mrs Anne Urquhart Still
saan and Guy in the Appellate Division
gf the Suprene Court
With the denial on it's merits of a
motion brought before Justice Albert
Sseger in Special Terms here to-day to
chow cause why the decision handed
down by Supreme Court Justice Nor
scfsaser on the findings of Referee
Gleason should rot be reviewed. the
sntire case, involving both the divorce
s0d paternity issues, comes immedi-
ateig within the jurisdiction of the
Appellate Division.
Counsel for Mr. Stiiiman are ferceA
10 this action, since they have been
blocked at every turn, in spite of skill
ful isgal moves TO have the unfavora-
bic decision reconsidered. William Rand
IT., appeared to-day so argue for MIR.
StiEBan on 81 motion for review He
based his Plea on the ground that when
Justice Mofschauser made his ruling
theirs were two motions Of similar i'm
port which were fled earlier and
therefore, entitled to prior considera-
zion. The first was q motiun for 3udg-
laenf on the report. This was filed By
mr. Stillman's counsel before Justice
Tomrkins ST Mack The other was
notion fer confirmation. fled at Pough.
keepsie, by John E. Mack, guardian aa
item Of Guy.
Justice Morschaaser Criticized
Mr.. Mack argued that no one Special
Term could oyerrule the findings of an
pthsr Special Term and that Justice
dersehauser's findings at White Plains
could only be reversed by the Appellate
Division.
Mr.. Rand detailed the various moves
IN either side since the decision fay
rable to Mrs. Stiilman and Guy was
landed down. He quoted the opinion
4 Supreme Court Justice Tompkins
sitting in Nyack last week that the
araetice OF the lawyers for the defence
circumventing the motion of the
iaintiff for reversal was improper, rep
-ehensible and without jurisdiction. He
admitted the Justice of Mr. Maek's con
ention that one Special Term will not
AGATE for another Special Term, add
ag:
The matter Of poiiteness between
sdges would seem TO have been waived
rom the beginning in this matter. If
9ou are Of the opinion that Justice
iorschauser was right, that disposes
f this motion. II, on the other hand,
YOU agree with Justice Tompkins that
this was improper procedure, it follows
that we VIII be found to have been de-
prived OF the right which the statute
gives US. We come TO you because we
seek remedy for the wrong which has
been inflicted on US"
John r. Brennan. counsel for Mrs.
Stiiiman, scathingiy referred to counsel
Tor the plaintiff Is travelling round
from judge to judge in disorderly
ashton" He insisted that Justice
Morschausers ruling should be ac-
cepted as final.
Mr, Rand retorted that Justice Nor
schanser was determined to be the
actor, judge and executioner in the
whole affair"
We take exception to his jur;sdic-
iion," he asserted
Finds Against StilIman
In finding against Mr.. Stillman Judge
soeger said:
This case involves some very seri-
Gus questions. Justice Morschagser has
aeld one opinion and Justice Tompkins
another. ! am not satisfied that Jus
lice Morschauser had no jurisdiction.
aud unless I was quite clear in mind
hat he had no Jurisdiction couldn't
entertain this motion, ! don't want to
say that either one of these Justices
vas right and either one was wrong.
j VII admit ! have read consid-
cradle amount in the newspapers about
the case and have hunted through
law books to ind out where there are
any points which would define that
eitaer had exceeded his authority, but
I have failed to find anything that
Noalu snow they had. II was charged
by counsel for Mrs. Stillman and the