The New York Times (New York, New York) 5 March 1909 Page 18
impeach Araisrs v;ord. Trust Company 8ay Walter Russell Misrepresented Hlg Property. Supreme Court Justice O'Gorman re served decision yesterday on the application application of Mrs. Helen A. Russell for an in unction restraining the Commercial Trust Company from disposing of securities worth J22.000 deposited by her with the company to secure the payment or a note for 117,000 Indorsed by her. . . Mrs. Russell, who Is the wife of Walter Russell, the painter of child pictures, contends contends that she wss f creed to deposit the securities and. Indorse the note by tho trust company, the condition being that the company would r.ot make use of a certain statement mide by her husband as to his financial condition when be obtained obtained from the comptny a $10,000 loan. The note for $17,300 became due March 1, and waa not psild. hence the trust company's company's anxiety to dispose of the S22.0O0 worth of securrfles to recoup themselves, r Counsel for the trust company, wnicn opposed the application, explained to the court that Mr. Russell borrowed ,40.000 from his client, the Commercial Trust Company, on a statement signed by him. in which he set forth that lie was owner of certain property, Including a farm, and an equity in property in west glxtv-seventh glxtv-seventh glxtv-seventh Street, valued at 167,000. Counsel said that the firm waa in tne name of Mrs. Russell, and the equity in the Blxty-seventh Blxty-seventh Blxty-seventh Street' property was not In the shape of land, but an interest In a company which owned property there. Mr. : Russell, at his studio, la vsi Blxty-seVenth Blxty-seVenth Blxty-seVenth Street, gave a times re porter his version of tbe matter ia iuiu, .-I .-I .-I k. in tw ioT7 ha wanted some cash and went to the Commercial Trust Company. They agreea- agreea- to iew " S25.x cssh. and also to accept a note for sio.wu. in iuiu lu" statement of his flnancUl Vonitlon, mhow-Insr mhow-Insr mhow-Insr he was worth welt over IUO.OOO after his debts were paid. In this statement m an item snowing mm nin wwi.cr farm valued at 12.000. and another showing an enulty " In west cixty-sey- cixty-sey- cixty-sey- cixty-sey- enth Btreet. vaiuea at He said mat tne iarra was him when In Kurope, and he supposed the deeds were In his name, but later he discovered that they had been put in his ir'. r,em u aaid he later explained this to the trust company, and they struck this item out of tho statement, with re gard to the West Bixty-sevenin Bixty-sevenin Bixty-sevenin street qulty, he claims that the word " land was insenea in tne msitinrui hj e.. tbe bank, after It was in their possession-Then possession-Then possession-Then came the panic, he said, and he was badly hit. The trust company called him In and agreed to accept H.IU in cash for their $40,000. Mr. Russell says ha accepted the offer, and went to the trust rnmimnv a lawyers reaay to carry it nut. The) latter retusea to ao so ana wanted double the amount, or S10.0O0. At the same time, he says, they Intimated to him that he could be arrested on the rround of false statements in the finan cial statement ne naa given tne cans. Mr. Russell says he was suffering from nervous prostration at the time, and It wits then bis wife came to his rescue and cut ud the securities and note, letter, af ter he had recovered and was able to attend attend to business again, he discovered that that word " land ' haa oeen insenea in the statement, and also that the item about the farm had been struck out of his statement, at bis request, by one of the trust company's officials. tn tha meantime Mr. -Russell" -Russell" had filed a oetition in bankruptcy and applied for nis aiscnarge, oniy to una umi u w opposed by the trust company, ana mat hl statement had been put in evidence. with the assertion tnat part ot it was false. The bankruptcy matter is stm fterdlacoverlng that his original statement statement was correct in every detail, with the exception of the farm item, of which trie trust company naa itnowieuo u mhtoK it had stricken out. Mrs. Russell began suit against the Commercial Trust Company, claiming f 100,000 damages.