Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-01-10
inform counsel as to whether OF not the

bill of particulars would be allowed.
Counsel. for Mrs. Addicks said they
desired to offer some evidence in regard |
to alimony. Mrs. Addicks was then
called to the stand and examined by
Mr.. Cattell. She said that she and her hus-
band separated on April 18th, 1894, and
since that time their paths had been di-
vergent. After the separation Mr.. Adj
dicks paid her $3.50 week until May
22d of last year when the weekly pay
ments ceased. He afterwards offered
her $50 week which she refused as it
was inadequate for the support Of her.
self and daughter. Continuing the wit
ness said:
"Since that time | have been living at
my own expense. have also been sup
porting Mr.. Addicks' daughter by his
first wife. | am his second wife, his
first wife being my sister. Prior to the
separation, our annual expenses were
from $4,000 to $4,000 o year. Mr..
Addicks' income last year from the
Boston Gas Co. was $25, 900; from the
Staten Island Terra Gotta, Tile and
Lumber Co., $4,000. His Investments
in the Metropolitan and Citizens Gas
Cos. of Brooklyn are worth $l50,0O0
and his annual salary from one of the
three Brooklyn companies is $4,000.
think he also receives an annual income
of $4,000 from the Becton Construction
Co. He has also the controlling interest
in the last.named company, and has
$150,000 invested in the gas works in
Wilmington"
The witness said that Addicks had
100000 invested in the Staten Island
tNtt nj hnr N
that some years his profits from this
concern alone netted him 100000.
There are from 600 to 1000 men on the
payroll. 1t is the largest concern of
the kind in the United States. Mrs.
Addicks said that the plant had been
appraised at u million and half. She
said her husband also owned portion
of the Knickerbocker Flats, in New
York, valued at $4,000, and a farm of
300 acres at Claymont, worth 5000.
Addicks gave her house which nets
her $1,500 year after the taxes are
paid. She also receives an annuity of
$400 from her fathers estate.
The witness has spent about $400 in
preparing for the trial and neither of
her counsel has received any money
| whatever.
When she married Addicks her father
gave her house valued at 100000,
which her husband sold and in return
for it decided her the house she now
holds. This ended her testimony.
Mr.. Ward called William II. Miller of
Philadelphia to the witness chair. He
said he was secretary and treasurer of
the Bay State Gas Co., and was Mr..
Addicks' confidential clerk. He said
that on tho books Addicks was repre-
sented as receiving $4,000 from the
Staten Island Terra Gotta and Lumber
Co., but even that was never paid. He
said Addicks was sinking money in the
concern every day. He had been receiv-
ing salary of $4,000 from the Brook
lyn Gas Co., but that salary ends as
soon as the new officers are elected.
From the Becton Construction Co. he
receives $4,000. He used to get $4,000,
His holdings in the Bay State Gas Co.
amount to about 100000. His income
from salaries is $17,500. The stock
which Addlcks holds in the various
concerns is mostly common stock, which
produces no income. He does not hold
much preferred stock.
The witness said he had about
100000 invested in the Staten Island
Co. but he is receiving no earnings from
this concern. 1t is u good investment
however. Addicks has been withdraw
ing securities from other companies to
keep the Staten Island Co. afloat. He
has been sinking $4,000 week in this
concern, Mr.. Miller sald.
The court asked whether or not any
arrangement had been made in regard
to counsel fees and Mr.. Hilles replied in
the negative Mr.. Cattell suggested that
$2,50O would suffice for counsel fees
and $1,000 for expenses, making 3d. ,50C
altogether.
Mr.. Ward stated that $500 was the
sum that was allowed counsel in the
McComb divorce case and he thought
that would be sufficient for either of the
lawyers in the case. The court said il
would also give their decision in thi;
matter Tuesday.
Chief Justice Lore handed down thu
decision Of the superior court, Tuesday, re
fusing to grant the rule compelling thu
petitioner in the AddCks divorce case tt
file q bill of particulars, setting forth mort
, clearly the specifications OF adultery in tn,
libel for divorce.
The motion vas made by H, II; Warc
and George Lodge counsel for j. Edward
Addicks, who asked for the bill of particu
lars, and the case was fully argued Mon
day. IL. 5. Cattell OF Philadelphia anC
William S. Hilles of this city appeared TO
Mrs. Addicks. The argument was finished
late Monday afternoon.
Chief Justice Lore and Associate Judge
Cullen and Marvel were OH the bencl
promptly at II o'clock. Mr.. Lodge wa
on hand and Messrs. Ward and Hille
came into the court room on the minute
There was sprinkling of lawyers il
attendance, but few spectators were i'll til
court room.
The Chief Justice said the Court wa
fully convinced that it had the right tt
, pass on the suiticiency of libel and i
was also possessed of common law juris
, diction in divorce cases. In filing the bill
Of particulars it was the opinion of tn
Court that counsel had chosen the prope
time for if the matter had been deferre,
: until the award of the commissioner wa
5 made, counsel would have waived TIL
right under the statute. But i'll this cas-
the Court was fully convinced that tn
allegations IN the bill of particulars wer
sufficient.
The Court held that the petitioner ha,
, alleged continuous adultery with certaii
correspondent at certain places Throughout
the country, which are mentioned in tn
bill, and the only thing not mentioned
the time of the occurrences. The Court sal
that the bill meets the purpose of particu
larization by alleging continuous adultery
: and ii it were to say beginning on Jan
0 uary 1st. 1887, and continuing through tn
months of March, April, May" and run
! ming through each and every month,
/ would not be more specific. because tn
J allegation that there was continuous ac
, from 1887 down to the time of the filing q
= the libel necessarily included that. Th
i rule was therefore denied.
In regard to the matter of alimony
o Court said that it had considered the ma