Evening star., 1932-05-17

Continued From First Page)
Mclean estate have been jeopardized
and that it is to Mr. McLean's own IN
terest that he be removed.
Maj. Julius I. Peyser, counsel for Nc
Lean, in his statement said Mclean
denies that he has neglected his duties
as co-trustee under his fathers will and
that he has attended all meetings OF
the co-trustces in the past two years
and that he is resident of the District
he now is in the American Hospital In
Paris and has been abroad for some
time.
Peyser maintained that the Washing
ton Post Co. is a corporation and that
the stockholders at any time may elect
a new president.
Peyser contended that the action
filed by Mrs. Mclean on behalf of her
three children should not rightly be
tried in Justice Bailey's court. He was
overruled.
Harrison offered as evidence a copy OF
a Mexico divorce complaint served on
Mrs. Mclean at Palm Beach about two
years ago. stating that her husband was
resident Of Cuernavaca, Mexico.
He also offered In evidence a main
tenance bill filed in the District Su-
preme Court by Mrs. Mclean in No
vember, 1890. and the decree entered
by the court in January. 1881. He also
offered the bill asking for the appoint
ment of Mclean as trustee under the
John r. Mclean estate in 1917
He also asked that the defendent
produce original letters from the Amer
ican Security g. Trust Co.. co-trustee
with Mclean, to Mr.. Mclean concern
ing the estate
Mrs. Mclean was not present when
the trial opened.
Business Losses Cited.
Continuing his testimony Marks
said the Post had suffered heavy losses
in advertising and circulation largely
because of the publicity given the
marital difficulties of Mclean. He said
the attempt last year to sell the Post
also proved injurious to its standing
with advertisers.
Mr. Marks pointed out that the Post
had suffered losses in advertising line
age and circulation during the past
year, although some of its competitors
had made gains in these respects.
Mr.. Marks said personal creditors of
Mclean deducted $27,l85 owed them
by the publisher from their advertising
accounts with the Post corporation.
This was done. he said, after the credi-
tors had attempted to collect the
money owed them by Mclean from the
newspaper. He said this resulted In
the Post sustaining loss of good will
among local advertisers.
This sum was carried on the books
Of the corporation as charge against
Mclean and finally vas paid, he said,
through the good Offices of Maj.
Peyser."
He said he thought payment was
made in April. 1881, after the Ameri-
can Security & Trust Co. had written
a letter urging him to make every
effort to collect this sum from Mclean.
Resided in Maryland.
Mr.. Marks said that Mr.. Mclean
stayed at the home Of John Major, in
Chevy Chase, Md, after returning here
from his trip to Mexico in order to
escape service of legal process in the
District of Columbia.
He said Major was paid 500 a
week by the Washington Post Corpora
ton, although his services were con-
cerned entirely with the private affairs
Of Mr.. Mclean.
He said Mr.. Fraser was also carried
on the Post pay roll at salary Of 500
a week, although his services were
largely in the nature of personal
financial secretary to Mclean" He
said Fraser, however, was director OF
the Washington Post Corporation and
helped prepare the corporations tax
reports. He said the attorney was re-
moved from the pay roll under instruc-
tions issued by the American Security
g. Trust Co.
Mr. Marks said he always experienced
difficulty in discussing important busi-
ness matters with Mr.. Mclean, and
that the publisher once told him he
never wanted to hear bad news"
Court Action Blamed.
On cross examination Marks admitted
that morning papers throughout the
country are losing advertising, with the
possible exception Of New York City.
Asked by Maj. Peyser what court
proceedings filed by Mr.. Mclean had
embarrassed the paper, Marks replied
it was the publicity caused by all the
court actions, both those filed by Mr.
Mclean and Mrs. Mclean, that had
hurt the paper.
On redirect examination Harrison
asked Marks If it were not true that
one of his suits which had caused the
publicity which has embarrassed the
paper had not been filed by Maj. Peyser
against Mclean for a fee. Marks re-
piled In the affirmative.
The next witness was Ernest H
Johnston, advertising manager, who
testified that his staff of advertising
solicitors had encountered sales resist
ance from advertisers because of Nc
Leans connection with the paper.
Has McLean's failure to pay bills
had any effect on the business of the
Post?"
Yes" replied Johnston.
At the request of Harrison. Johnston
produced a memorandum from one OF
his advertising solicitors which stated
the solicitor had had difficulty getting
church advertising for the Post be-
cause of the "unchurchmanlike" action