ray nt FILED JUN-4 1963 (0 ip | sornmm count or PH STATE oF ww YORK | Psi, fr soto tes an | @lleges as follows: | | Lea. The Appellate Division of the supreme court! \ Seoond Department, then located at Borough Hall, Brooklyn, | now ror, \ bd. In or about @etober, 1932. Ae an individual practitioner at 215 | Montague Street, Brooklyn, New York, from 1932 to 1937. As an individual practitioner at 2 Lafayette Stree ew York City from 1937 to 1942. Ase partner in « law firm at the \ fame address from about 1942 to 194. Ae @ partner in a lew firm at r, Wow York City,trom about 19h, #e 1953. | inmate, vee t 2112 Broadway, New York City, | Andividual practitioner at the | wring of 1961, on | the exception of thoseafter a short period of marriage; the likeliheea of obtaining « lump mm rather than a weekly or monthly sti- pend; the execution of « will wherein she would be nemed the chief beneficiary; and the possible creation of trusts for her benefit in the event of her being divorced from Alfred Clark. On June 13, 1961, plaintiff had « confer- ence with defendant,Alfred Clark and the latter's attorney, A. Pennington Whitehead, Esq., at the Plaza Hotel, in New at length York City, in the course of which they discus: what finaneial arrangements were contemplated for plaintifr by her prospective husband. Assurances were then procured frea Mr. Clerk that he would seoure defendant financially for the rest of her life. Plaintiff interrogated Mr. ding his financial position; Mr. Clark declared Clerk r that his then income was elose to $300,000.00 per annum, but that this placed him in @ 91 per cent tex bracket, further stating that ,both of them, sefundant Crag tty caiting from her restdence, | from celephune booths of from Bense's, a macsags salon Located | at 30 Ease 60ch Sexeet, Mew York, where defendant attandea | seqatenhysDotéadian'arés"etece 25 Fangel ae poe | chese matters with « neighbor of || was handling ber correspondence. I On oF about August 15, 1961, defendant requested | pletnesee to: miee tier at xe,‘ wbistshiead! T8, one Melvin J. Fagen, who coo en | css se as nn | were suffictently favorable or satisfactory to her. Plainciff |, thereupon attended such @ conference with Mr. Colcord, an associate of Hr. Whitehead, and exanined @ copy of the original fe at that office, Plaintiff mice | will, which was kept in « |, umary of the vill"s contents, 4elivered’a’ copy theredl! to defendant and discussed it with her for several hours. Defendant's attitude on this occasion was one of disappointment because of ‘not being left a sum of money aggregating at least « fev million * sotiere;etivtcespbcet eatsan cihiprWtablertaspiai nda’ iit arte" aks carried to Mr. Clark for some time, she might be able “nad veen.y || piaineiee to tavescigace the holdings j.zietnctée co tnvecetsare che holdings of the Clark cenliy id om ft IAYSS"PFIOET€O Che" mareiager detomaane teemneeee | stnancen of che Singer Ewing Machine Company. In response to | thie instruction plaintiff obtained information on these subjects | vated be prompely transmitced to defendant, although the effect pleasure of Mr. Clark, who | of his inquiries was to incur the 4: | charged plaintiff with prying into family matters, i Prior to September 16, 1961 (which plaintiff be- | lieves to be the date of defendant's marriage with Mr. Clark), j plaintiff made special efforts to expedite defendant's Mexican vised | divorce. In response to defendant's inquiries, plaintift ! [ner that the State of New York would not recognise the validity of chat divorce and that @ marriage in reliance thereon could || possibly lead to a charge of bigamy, Plaintiff further advised her that under the circumstances her marriage to Mr. Clark should ' ' preferably take place in the Stat | This advice was rejected by defendant, who stated that Mr. Clark i | was reluctant to leave Cooperstown and that since he was « man of of New Jersey or Connecticut. | great wealth and influence, he could persuade the Clerk to conduct} Bu she confis ‘ I | che mecringe; she Later MRERMOAISININELEE that tho warriogs vas i drop carving else fh b00 indeed expedited at in Cooperstown. cet sis q t telephoned plain-lence; and chat he hed informed her he was | from the Clark res! | going to instruct Ais cttorney to destroy the will be had en- ecuted for ber benefit. Defendant further stated that she was | quite witltag co terminate the marriage; chat she already nad « ftemond ring valued at $100,000.00, diamond earrings worth #12,: | clas gectttom niente eee approximately $30,000.00; that she would be willing to settle for an additional Lump sum of $100,000.00. | Plaintif® thereupon advised hor co atand firm, but to do nothing that might possibly further antagonize her husband; defendant stated that she would | follew this counsel. On Septecber 29, 1961, at about 5 P. M., plaintife received # telephone call from Mr. Fagan (mentioned above) to ' the effect that he had just learned of the death of Alfred Corning| | ctark; chat he was cnable to locate defendant; and that plaintitt | shoura try to get in touch with her, to take whatever action she wished. At about 6 P. M. defendant telephoned plaintiff; plain- \ tL£f gave her the message; and she confirmed it. Defendart i depged plaintif£ to drop everything else and accompany her to cooperstowm and make necessary arrangeacnts for the funercl; she | declared she would require his services constantly from that \ Plaintiff informed defendant that he already had nade soment.18 an seuss to Comperecown; DOFORGORS time pewvatied wpse plate. CA8f, whe Massened te his heme, picked « oulséase and avenged for Limousine transportation. Flatatit’ proceeded by lineusina C0 the Great Morthera Motel, pished wp defendant ond traveled with her to Cooperstown, where thay arrived ot shout 1A. H. of the following éay. At the Clerk residence they conferred briefly with some of the servants. Theos or four hours Later platnsite's sleep wee interrupted by « telephone call from a Sew York news | pevere.{ neamttie, during the night defendant telephoned « friend in Los Angeles, California, and informed her thet her husband had died the dey before; that he had left her o great fortune running inte nany millious of dollars; and that she hed brought her lewyer with her to meke all arrangements for her. } On September 30, 1961, after an almost sleepless night, plaintif? conferred with the deceased's brother, Stephen Clerk, Je., ond with one TilLspeugh, the local undertaker, con- cerning funersl arrangesents, including floral decorations, the | casket, the viewing of the remains end the time of the obsequies; in all of which it was difficult to procure the cooperation of defendant, hat was insistent upon watching 8 particular televis- fon program thet evening im the inity of her lete husband's b ale weJ giguacton; the possibility of any will contes defendant's || eucure mode of Living; the dispos: | recuse ao oa position of the Clark residence j and ite furnishing: her desire co have a number of of1 paintings end certain other articles, which she requested to plaintit? to itemize in a room-by-room tour of the premises. She also instruet| ed plainciff to make arrangements with « local moving concern for | the future crating and transportation of the items she had sale: | cea. \| even before Mr. Clark Before the Cooperstown trip sbove described and doath defendant stated to plaintiff she believed herself to be prognant, her menstrual period being over- due. She stated she hed had an affair with a certain motion picture actor, whon sho was very anxious to marry. Pursuing i this line of discussion in Cooperstown and even on the day of || the funeral (October 2, 1961), defendant suggested that plaintiff | inform the deceased's attorney (who had j / sonal friend) of her pregnancy, saying this would insure syn- = I | although (as plaintiff stated to her) grave doubte and wo.dermont so been his close per- pathy and great consideration from the family. Plaintiff compli || were expressed concorning this situation, since all close to the | | deceased knew him to have been @ chronic alcoholic, impotent and incapable of begetting offspring. The claim of pregnancy was feliowing 4 fi communicated by plaintiff to Mr. Kerr, one of the executors designated in the will request, defendant stating her to procure plaintife ible arrival| I tn nev Yo of the ter rfared toto te pesetngpertgzagy ew she could aequire « certain dimond brocch whieh aha tee ccmetoed'at Van Cleat & Arpalay petesdan ¥onitory wer con hatecoe ber Late husband had in the Horgan Ouaty frosy emp acest)’ cab’ incense’ Evan! ecvaststeha Beara sees ac chepecuteenst. sa oebent|coureeeentn eee a Somme of coe j1{) oe pouestI1 hy eleva gear cuain’coniiy,‘a visit to’ Van Clout’ shapes! and) cx oppvintaens wieh Me. Kerr. &m October 5, 1961, plaintiff met Mr. Kerr and engaged in « preliminary conversation with him, relating to Mr, Clark's death, bis family, his personel estate, the pot size of the various trust funds and other incidencel matters. Plaintiff then persuaded Mr. Kerr to advance the sum of $10,090. | for defendant's tmmodiate use, In the afternoon of the same day plaintiff reported to defendant the result of his meeting with Mr, Kerr, She stated that she had spoken to the actor in Paris and that she had decided to undergo an abortion, Plaintiff ad- vised against any such step, and defendant asked on what grounds, Plaintiff stated chat the proposed course was objectionable on both legal and moral grounds, Plaintiff further advised her that | she should have the child for the following reasons; the child would be heir to @ substantial fortune from the Clark estate; that she would not be unnecessarily tied down; that plentiful || funds would be provided to further the upbringing of the child, quir ‘ ons for the child's ‘bear the name in society;[ ! tn New York of the sotor Fe! wwed 00 U0 ENO Preseding parentanhy how she sould sequins © Kemond Wreeeh whieh she hed cdaseotn oar nie al 08 AE 199,000) Uhe eas palance hex Lace husband had in the MOREA OUAKANEY Tewat Company account; che discharge of the servants and the eloeing of the house at Cooperstown, The second conversation deale with the ming @ash from the and Axpele and an appointment terms of the will, the possibility Clark family, # vieit to Van Chi with Mr. Kerr, On October 3, 1961, plaintift met Me. Kare and engaged in a preliminary conversation with him, relating te Mr. Clark's death, bis family, hie personal estate, the possible size of the various trust funds and other ineidencel matters, Plainciff then persuaded Mr, Kerr to advange the sum ef $10,090, for defendant's immodiate use, In the afternoon of the seme day plaintiff reported to defendant the result of his meeting with Mr. Kerr, She stated that ehe had spoken to the actor in Paris |] and that she had decided to undergo an abortion, Plaintiff ad- vised against any such step, and defendant asked on what grounds, Plaintiff stated that the proposed course was objectionable on she should have would be heir that she7 i that ene nced have no fe ro OF Gualms on the score of 1 of paternity, 1c lav wuld presuns the child Go be hins char iec4tiene oa [ exe cerongest press a dead, eho need not 2c appreitcnuive about bleed tee whieh ton knows 40 Lav that, eince b cr husbane ght otherviae expose a preaarital Lfaisons and that since che woe already aluost thirty-five years of age, this might be hor ' Last opportunity to have @ child, In response to the foregoing advice, cefcndant ii seated che would alk tie matter over vith @ wonan friend and ake @ proupt decision, us time was most inportant. the report 2 knowm throughout the Clark fautly cad won | was communicated, anony othos, to one Robert S. Pottcr, [o concerned regardin:, Alfred Corning Clerk, Jr., his neghew F and the only issue of Alfred Clark's atx marsicces. vir, Porter uid | sneteted that before tho will vcs probated, defendant its to excmination by @ physician of his choosing to ¢otcr~ ine this question, it being an issue of vast importance to os~ certain whether the trustees ehould withbold payment of certain | natured trust funds est:blished for the issue of the deccased, || This Lovolved millions of dollars and necessitated a conference at the office of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Robert: santas the miceties : : i with Mr. Nourse, and mai \ || defexdane and Messrs. 4 i of pregnancy. 1 exom- / nation by two phycova house, including the furnishings 5 OF otherwise; the 3 the prospece= ive arrival in New York of the actor from Paris in the near future, she stating thet he wuld be her guest; the posatble rental of # lumurtout epartment to impress him, including prefar- sbty Ew bedrooms, flor epprarence'a sake at Leasty with the rene tel range {nereased frm §1,000 to $2,000 per month. Acccrding« ly, 2 defendant's request, plaintiff communicated with severel agente, incleding Pat Pslmer, Mrs. Davis (cf Merrill Payson Co.), Mies Sterr and Miss Lorirg. Plaintiff inspected and discussed with esents a number of apartments at destgrated buildings, and arranged for defendant to examine many of then, Defendant re- Jected all of then, Stnding fault with the lecacions, the furnish ings, the unavailability of eaids and housekoopers and other éetails, Plaintiff and deferdant a! inspected « nuaber of som houses and cooperative apartments, as well as furnished aparteenti On Octobar 9, 1961, plaintiff had a conference with Messrs, Whitehead and Glare at their office (44 Wall Street, Je ont of Mow York City), ed ie engaged tn general 6 @iscussion concern ‘tn the matter of rheFal attornays in the Winthrop [The some day plaincif£ spoke to ditional information as to fico with a view tovards obtaining weral truste of the estates of Alfred Clark and his father, he ee pie thn to ee net ene eee eee | | office of the agent Vitaglianc. c-room apartment at Park Avenue and 87th Street, | spected an eight y in the afternoon of the sane i eR ee [re nese an em Ce i a | Philberto DeBourbon. Defendant inspected the $59,000 | y meeting Me faond brooch which she was most anxious to acquire. to pay for te, af | ate ii constanely asking plaintiff to induce the esta nal funds therefor except as © ff had already taken she did not wich to uss her perso | last alternative. The matter was one plaintt Kerr, who referred tho question to Whitehead. Plein- jelry had been ordered at the | a | exfe hed urged chat since the Jew to be set up in accordance with defendant! quest of the deceased, ie wos an obligation of the estate; it appear- | ‘ed Likely that paynent vould be made out of the estate, with rhe double advantage to defendant of cutting down the gross personal i | satate and the effecting of @ consequent tax saving. On cubse- | quent visit to these jewelers, defendant also eclected a dtamond: and sapphire platinum necklace, specially priced for her at | wishes and design, i | \ \ >|Uesever, defendant indicat. | fea thee ehe cate wiehove obligation. & pigoly weated them #. ¥eil€ PUEChONG hen in any event if | necearary. i on. 0¢: 13, 1961, fendant called recording the apartaents, and plointt£f£ arranged a mectins for her and a | certain Men. Steinwinder at 1050 Park Avenue, Mev York City, to | tnspcct an apartment which plaintiff had elready seen, with rental | 5 '| ¢1,000 per month, and cconed to overcome the objections defendant | ae Plaintiff then ali teed about other «ipertments. visited, the Ritz Carlton apartments at 6£0 Madison Avenus,| fondant, eftemoon plaintiff called at the Winth- i | sew York City. The | | cop office end dtecussed with Hr, Trigstade the statue of the | Clark cotate, In the evening plaintiff telephoned defendant, re throp office and also discussing the | viewing his visit co the befendant urged plaintiff to continue his apartment situstion. | gearch over the weekend for an elegant furnished apartment, stat- tominent and that she cwot de ing that the actor's visit w | prepared for hia. i on Octcber 16, 1961, plaintiff discussed with || defendant the apartrent guest and his proposed conversations with Mescrs. Whitehead and Kerr, including the matter of Van Cleef & Arpels. In the afternoon of the sene day defendant and plaintiff at 910 Fifth Avenue, New| and Me, Clare (his partnc:) to Cooperstown, where a ME. Leary | as to act as counsel, The conversation included the posstvie construction of the will, plaintiff urging Mr. Whitehead to use every effort to expedite probate so that the trustees aight pay |} defendant the sun of $100,000.00, provided for in the will as aq trust funds, Plaintiff ex- dance with defendant's 0 be paid in the tad Judicidl | invasion of principal of one of the 1 | constant pressure, that thie initial ¢100,000.0 ear 1961 (although there appeared to be repor! the sone day defendant requested ! catendar y || authority to the contrary). plainti¢é to communicate with one Joe Bushkin regarding the pot Plaintiff there- upon had several long conversations with Mr. Bushkin, whose wife! | ible subleasing of his Sutton Place apartment. | | | however, made the apartment unavailable. Several ‘opposition, other apartments were considered by plaintiff and defendant, but | nothing materialized in this connection. on October 18, 1961, plaintiff and defendant went @Qiiss Stern) to inspect i | with « representative of & Peed Brees Park Avenue ando rentioned to him the spartment situation jin the day. She al Jand the opening of @ bank account for her. That afternoon plain- leser arranged with the Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, 654 Madison averwa’branch) for*the! opening’ of’ « bank Sccouhe end” tha’ GaEabTiah iment of credit for defendant. 5 on October 20, 1961, platnt! Aff spoke to a New York one Albert Albelli, who desired to interview med defendant of this and prevailed ed, in which course she [patty Neus reporter, |/¢efendant. Plaintiff info | upon her not to grant the intervicw request acquiesced after @ prolonged discussion. i on october 21, 1961, at defendant's request, plain- ' cies undertook negotistions with @ Hrs, Bisso, of 910 Fifth Avenue i | who wished to sublet « luxurious apartment at that addres | / Bisse consented to reduce the rental from $2,000.00 to $1,750.00 x couth. Plaintiff coumunicated the results of this negotiation | co defendant. ; On October 23, 1961, plaintiff had a discussion with Mr, Whitehead recarding 1 j and concerning the rete: | tLEf met Mr. Kerr ference incluced 4! | estate; | paymone:—— bo made out of the estate. On che same day plaintift conterrea with Mesers. Brosnan and Crandall of the Winthrop offies regard~ ing the saveral estates and trusts they were handling to the ex- tent that they affected the Alfred Clark estate, That night, at 11 P. M., defendant telephoned plaintiff from the Warwick érug- store (as abe stated) end had a long conversation with him te- garding his meetings that day with Messrs, Whitehead, Kerr, | Brosnan and Crandall. They also discussed the feasibility and availability of an apartnent hotel instead of an ordinary spart- | ment, as well as the matter of the maids employed by Alfred Clarkj) | defendant was unalterebly opposed, she stated, to giving thea three wonths' pay, suggesting that two weeks would be sore than adequate; she asked plaintiff to transmit her views on this sub- | Ject to Mr. Kerr, vhich he subsequently did; they also discussed the valuation and incone of the estate, i on October 24, 1961, plaintif? communicated with mae Starr, a real estate agent, regarding the various apartments she had recomended and which plaintiff had inspected, either Seah neeah ey alone or together with defendant. ‘ day plaincife hed . pete ee st Van Cleet & a number of conversations[en again tn che evening, discussing che checking account ce eee | morgan | gan Guaranty Trust Company and the transactions with Van Cleef | & Arpele. | On October 26, 1961, plaintiff spoke to Mr. Kee id attorney for Van Cleef & Arpele, and made final arrangements for | | defendant's taking the Jevelry on memorandun basis, | 0a October 27, 1961, pleintifé had meeting with | obecteitt Ateaouetogs Sete aeantes irate Arpels, and called to | hia attention that © higher price was mentioned in the consign- \ ment than the special price which had been offered for sale; | plaintiff requested written confirmation of the arrangement re- | guctng the price from $39,500.00 to $35,000.00, which written confirmation was forthcoming in day or two, The sane afternoon plaintifé and defendant inspected suites at the Sherry-Netherland | | On October 28, 1961, defendant requested plaintiff ‘co inepect suites at the St. Regis and Gotham Hotels and report |co her as to eize, descriptions, availability and rates. She | alec expressed disappointment over inability to receive « lump Renee t they discussed of avoiding gst that additions} z that she vas from MusicThe Sc. Regis aparcuente as requested by detenaanc, communicated with Mr. Kerr concerning the maids in Cooperstown and miecellansous bills which defendant wae submitting co him for paywant, Plaintiff spoke to Mr. Whitchead with reference to the proceedings to be initiated in Cooperstown, the citation to be issued, possible exceptions, the special guardian to be ‘appointed, the construction of the will and « permissible pay~ | nent of $100,000.00 of principal to defendant. Plainti€f had || tater discussions that evening with Me. Whitehoad about the will, and the arrangement for personal service of @ citation on de- fire, Plaintiff had dinne: fendant by @ meuber of Mr, Whiteh I with defendant that evcing at Bamey's Steak House, on Vest 53th Street, New York City; thoy discussed various matters pertaining to the estate, includir.s tax problems; this discussion continued in a taxicab while plaintiff cscorted defendant home, At 11 P. t defcndant telephoned plainciff. I On Octoler 31, 1961, defendant telephoned plain= tiff twice, In the £iret conversation she requested him to ar- to seud three doen carnations to her mother-in-law, Hre,whether he hed any inforcation about a possible stock epiit an to Soldier on Hi11" suppe= about @ certain painting entitl | wed co have been bequeathed by Stepben Clark to Alfred Clerk. | she also asked plaintif£ to find out the address and telephone | maber in Westbury, Long Island, of an Ambrose Clark, Plaintiff telephoned defendant that afternoon and discussed with her the ral subjects of her inquiry. on Noveaber 2, 1961, plaintiff wet defendant at | che Great Northern Hotel for the purpose of discussing with her | the execution of Ber will, which for sone weeks had been the | subject of discussion betwoen them, Plaintiff on this eccasion, || a previously, impressed upoa defendant the importance of this husband's will, the step, as she had, under the terns of her 1a | Power of disposition of the entire accumlated estate under funds ia and B, depending on her marital status; in one situation she | could dispose of one fund and in ancther of both, There was en | extended atecussion of persons and the enounts to be bequeathed it each of them, Defendant instructed plaintiff to hold the actual éraft of the will in abeyance pending her final decieton, Tentatively defen ‘following beneficiaries and : ‘Fagan $10,000.00; Dr. 00; Alain Deloin 1» $30,000.00, led plaintite ‘between heri on Novenver 5, 1961, plainei€e accordingiy mae me. Maki and had @ convereation with him about « motion picture This appointment was hold on a Sunday in response to defendant's | tnetecence upon ite urgency. 0a Movenber 6, 1961, defendant called plaintifé regarding a letter received from the Cooperstown Town Clerk which indicated some discrepancies in the marriage certificate. there was also @ discussion about her mail, vhich, in pursuance of & previous arrangement in Cooperstown, wae forvarded to plaintiff's) office, sorted out each day, discussed over the telephone, and {a somo instances transuitted by plaintif£ to defendant either by mail or by personal delivery. This arrangement continued for | an extended period. On Noveaber 7, 1961, defendant called plaintiff | regarding cortain documents which ‘she insisted he should forward uding death certificates, a telegraa from the will, and a | to her imediately, inc: hor late husband relati cortaia letter |ocag pln, tre om overt therein y etna |explained a created for the trusts y be ine ge.y chat an tonue we ec they would rightful ‘Jx., pending dotermin- of Alfred, | atntetering other crusts; chal fon to withhold paysent from Alfred, poste! ether or not there wai action of wh were disposed to file objections to the and uncle of Alfred, Jr~ ete assurance that defendant wee instrumental in inveding On the sane vill unless they received compl and that she could not be not pregnant stoblished for Alfred, JF. the income and trust ¢! intiff to communicate with the occasion dofsadant requested plal ssued had been new check books, aa the ones i bank and oxéer asked plaintiff to berate Mr. Defendant alee fe Lump sca bequest in hor That night improperly printed. unitchead for not having provided husband's will instead of Limiting her to income, defendane telephoned plaintiéf regarding certain reports watch had been published in Cholly Enickerbocker's column in the New nicate | York Journal American, She rea with the weiter and inform eny one; that she knew of years and had maint thar Prince Marto for the past & Steam and,j [ informed defendant that so far as he knew, among those present | would be Me. Huntington lartford, Mx, Douglas Burden (Dore socially prozinent), @ aunber of nobelmen with whose names he | yas not fantliar, Mr. Vattehead (on plaintiff's invitation), certain persons from the United Nations and the heads of various | coumercial enterprises, Defendant thereupon requested plaintiff to take her to this function, Plaintiff picked up defendant at the Great Northern Hotel with « taxtesb, and escorted her to the | cet. regis Motel, where the function was being held, ‘There de+ | condant met Me. Hartford, whom she had previously known, and was introducted to Mr. Burden by plaintiff at her request, She Anaisted that plaintiff take Mr, Burden aside, inform him of her | wealth and tadicate co him that she would be interested in fin- | ancing a picture if he would eppear in it with her. On Novenber 17, 1961, plaintiff spoke to Mr. White-| || had several times regarding obtaining @ medical certificate | from a recognized ae defendant's state of prec- j nancy. In the absence of |] cite that the witnesscaher travelion included macce: pertaining to her ctet) Kotentions, taxes on the income from the and various tion of tax treaties betveen the United Stati countries. On Movenbor 19, 1961, plaintiff made arrangements to procure Dr. Wachaman's letter and a resume’ of his background, to satisfy Mr. Potter (himself an attorney). On Novenber 20, 1961, plaintiff had several con- versations vith Mr. Whitehead, who intimated that Mr. Nourse, of with Dr. Wechsman's back- eiette the Winthrop office, was not ground, and that this might deley the probate. Plaintiff er- || ranged @ conference with Mr, Nourse, and reported to defendant. On Novenber 21, 1961, plaintiff wet Mr. Whitehead at the latter's office, and proceeded with Messrs. Whitehead and Clare to the office of Mr. Nourse, At this conference Mr. Kerr was also present. After soma discussion of the medical exanina- a that ne 5 tion of defendant, it decane apparent that Mr. Potter insisted mentioning ( F on @ further examination by obstetrician, Plaintiff be conducted on 130 East 65th Seideray che prevace and scheduled probate heart due would hardsnip on che wien certainly retard the diacribution o! Plaintiff also spoke several times £ funds to defendant , who was constantly pressing therefor. thie day to defendant and impressed upon her the urgency of the situation, Later that evening plaintiff again discussed with bee and she requested him to assure Van theoming and that she the matter of the jewelry, Cleef & Arpele that payment would be fort desired thea to hold the jewelry for her, subject to her use, on Noveabor 25, 1961, defendant telephoned plain- tiff lace at night and questioned him as to the likelihood that dotails of the estete matter would appear in the newspapers 4 fureher especially the Daily Kews and the New York Times; she chat many inquiries were being made by the London Times and the London Datly Mail. She stated to plaintiff that sne would like shended. eonwar se: to receive at Least $209,000.00 « tax free, She indicate that che was disappointed in that m value had been placed ther friends the tre-ey | road ehac he vas noe to speak co the press again. F prain | conversation between she ai a typical Af to estimate her probable income, This wai plaintifé and defendant, and its duration | was almost an hour. | On November 26, 1961, (@ Sunday), plaintiff ac- || companied by hie wife, went to Cooperstown, registering et the || Otescago Hotel, whero he met Mr. Clare, In the lobby of that | noeen plaintiff overheard « conversation between Mr. William | Hadley, one of the subscribing witne and the wife of Mr. vigor- | Marr, who was another subscribing witness, Mrs, Harr w || ously opposed to defendant's receiving anything at all from the \ estate, and kept asking as to whether or not there was any way | of stopping her. Later plaintiff was introduced to Mr. Hadley and Mr, and Mrs. Marr, and had extended conversation with the, { | | in the course of which he persuaded them that defendant was de- i serving in every way. On Noveaber 27, 1961, plaintiff attended in | ior local counse} and with the special guardian, Plaintiff also hed | a conference with the Surs dtetribution of $100,0 i of defendant that she || ing obligations, Court, in Cooperstown, and conferred with both theincluding @ direceton eo get tm couen wae She furcher requested te. Ker about insurance on the paintings plaintifE to call Me. Wittchead ot he Hntcherbockar clubs t0 tll would communicate intiff about f him that defendant was in Doston and that #he fendant also informed pla in Me, Purdon was quoted: 1m of the Cooperstows Later that night dom article and with hin in a day or two, jos article in the Sunday News vhere: jPlaincife called Mr. Whitehead and told b [proceedings and gave hin defendant defendant called plaintiCf back and read to him the Pur in the tiews, word for verd; she asked him for his reactionty ed the patter in detail, She seated further that the would Like to arrenge for future interviews in various top | nagastnes, ‘The last conversation vas of wore than an bour's ' duration, t on Novecver 28, 1961, plaintiff had a discussion ines Lester Samuels, Ecq., of the firm of Weisman, Celler, Allen, | Spore & Shetnberg, Eaq., who had been consulced by # former wife | of Alfred Clark and desired @ copy of the will. Plaintiff er- | panged chat tt be supplied, ‘The same day defendant called re- | garding her mail and check books. . \ of certain rmort | in Wall Street that sheland cho confirmed chat an appointment hea oP. M. Plaineifé arrived prowpety M, She was inter- [ee es due defendanc 414 not reach the bar until 2 F. viewed and photographs vere taken, That evening she called Pl ta 1 from a lewyer in tiff and informed him she had received # Lette Capri relating to her raid when she had forced her way into # house in Capri and had found Edvard Purdon in bed with the Lace Alfred Clark's third wife, Horas, As a reault of this incident | complaint and crose-coaplaine had been filed by her end agatnee her, which were scheduled co cous on for erial in Naples on Doce ember 11, 1961, after asay continuances. Defendant stated that and she asked plaintiff | she did not want to go to Capri or Kapl for advice, Plaintiff advised chat she write to the lawyer and obtain a further adjournment, of, if this were not possible, to arrange for a discontinuance on several suggested grounds, to wit, no marriage | principally that she was busy with a huge estat || existed any longer between her and Mr. Purdom and that she had no animus or interest to prosecute any one, Defendant stated to plaintiff that she would communicate by letter or telephone with her representatives in Italy and instruct them to proceed accord- ingly. civen instructions ber in Rome, At r+ White~1 on Decuvzer 1, 1961, defendant called piaimeses pordon had previously Lincnteanchiernemarlel | errectenad oa aanutacut: of che marciage, which wound nave. ee ¢ advised defendant passport, pleintif! \ | effect of cancelling no! te would not 5 howavers the inceptions co Beicish policy 4 from ice sncepeiens \ chat if the marriage wee valid at \ affected by the annulnent, according | Af the marriage vas @ nullity oF 9°F vali hod the right co recall the passport. ed plaints ely Burdon, } the avthoriet oarpbeddbie, By<196%9 defendene call and had a long eonversacton with him regarding Dousle® | especial I y concerning certain rumors being circulated to the suing him and offering to make © motion fe her. Dof*r= effect that she was put on that he would act in ic opposits i “T ptewure on conatet quae requested that platnette yet in touch ‘and ask her to stop spre: with « certain Jean Living at che Shoreham Hotel, mors, Plaincifé accordingly epoke to Hrs, Donnelly They then had & Donnelly, Ang sue! eat reported the conversation to defendant. favther discussion ovout hor alleged plans for motion picture “Mr. Whitehead called plaintif {ey-Matic Corpcrations ead algo an option to and sharce at @ to confer with de-mighe a€fect nacital duductions, On Deces ver 6, 1951, plaineife spoke to defendant ate, and particularly about appraisal of the ‘ cegarding the « the advisability of sell- ohings aad paintings and Defendant informed plaintifé that she property. ing the Cooperstown house. tad had a conversation, vith He. iiitehead concerning Cie Sahay In the bank and that she had denanded « transfer of approximately weld in her late husband's bank account, §179,209,00 which w plaincifé explained to defendant why thie could not be done in the avwer she had requested, She also told plainttEt of the covers b sscton with ifr. Waitchcod as co, the value of the eatate,, the, tf, She requested plaintiff cose and the eppointzent of trustee: to comminteate again vith Hr, Viitchead and again discuss most fof the tecues, and plsistifé did so. on Decerver 7, 1961, defendant called plaintift ed to & chech :he had iseved and on which she wished with ress payment stopped. Plal:iiff complied, following up with a letter to the bank, She also requested plaintif£ to communicate with t the appraiser cppcinted ‘n Cooperstown to make sure that the \ privacy. Plaintiff assured her that be public but thac ir was the not to permit inspec=Sold that Purdom would atteapt to block her inheritence. She j “SN*¢ Plaineiee whether chis was possible, Plaintiff discussed | ‘Re situation with her at length, and they also epoke sbout an She stated further that she had learn e¢ from Mr. Whitehead the Clarks’ wishes to uphold the family relationship for the reason that one half of the estate might article in Time magazine. revert to the Clark Foundation, On Deceaber 11, 1961, plaintiff spoke to Mr. White-| head regerding the appcintment of trustees in Cooperstom without notice; an inventory of defendant's late husband's estate; the opening of executors’ accounts; and @ proposed meeting with Me. Poul Kare. cies SU Miing, ste vs oa called plaincite ‘article that had* on Decenber 14, 1961, poke to Me, Watt head, who stated he had not sent plaintiff the inventory because of instructions from dofendant not to do 80; plaintiff expressed the opinion that Mr. Whitehead did not im the efreumstances owe ‘any duty to defendant, not representing her, and that Mr. White- head surely should have forvarded the inventory to « brother attorney. On Decenber 18, 1961, plaintiff spoke to Hr. DeBourbon, of Van Cleef & Arpels, who informed him that Mr. Bradford Coleord, of Mr. Whitehead's office, was checking the circumstances relating to the order of the diamond brooch and required an invoice for the earrings to determine the gift tax presumably. Plaintiff reported the subject-aatter of | this conversation to defendant, |b. The agreement was oral, made directly between Plainti££ and defendaut, on or about September 30, 1961, at | cooperstown, New York; ite cerms that plaintiff would be coupen- sated by receiving 10 per cent. of any moneys received by defend- ant from the es! ‘3, a. Because of defendant's reputation as @ prostitute and pervert, plaintiff was obliged to use every effort to depict her in a favorable and acceptable light, so that she might gain favor with her husband's family, who were among the wealthiest and socially most prominent in the United States. Thid| approach not only preccded defendant's marriage to Alfred Clark but hed to be continued and furthered after his death, lest the facts become known vhich would be likely to create a contest and coupletely defeat any right of defendant co share in her Lace | husband's estate, This position was taken and preserved by plaintiff upon ‘ete pee secon and requests. to an am a factaympachy on the Yon the Part of the executors and faaily of her Gecesned bu waband, VAtch pregnancy vas thereagrer cersinated bY afensene a “ Towah 4m Legal abortion, riaincite prevetiee wren Oe Scutore fo advance to defendent g309,000,00 before tne ont of he year when the legel right to do go was at 10set doubtful PlaineLee with aifeicuicy dtevvaded defendant fro ateenreins Co blackmatl and extore from Joveph 7, teanedy, the father of che Prebident of the Untted states, che sum of $250,000.00 9 620" aideratt if her relinguishment of alimony claims againe® Edaund Purdoe, her then husband, who was threatening, tf she correspondent tn a divorce action, Plaincifé with great difficulty deverred Anaisted upon alimony, to name the President defendant froa attempting to have written and published so article to supposed refutation of an article concerning her and the President of the United States published in the September, 1961, tenve of & magazine known as see which depicted F dopants \ Bid sy, lew tock 234)