New-York tribune., 1896-07-23
MRS. WINKEMEIER AGAIN.
SHE MOVES FOR ADDITIONAL ALIMONy
AND COUNSEL FEES PENDING
APPEAL.
NOT SATISFIED WITH THE 81 400 A YEAR GIVEN
TO HER, HALF OF WHICH is FOR
HER CHILD.

HER CHILD.
Mrs Maud B Winkemeier is not satisfied with
the award Of s.. 400 permanent amony which was
made 10 her for the care Of herself and son in the
suit for divorce which she brought against Chris
tian +. Winkemeier. and in which she was sue
cessful the defendant not opposing the action She
intends 10 appeal the Appellate Division OF the
Supreme Court and see whether she cannot get
larger allowance and with that end in view her
counsel James j. Solely. of the law firm Of Tracy.
Boardman & Platt, moved before Justice Osborne
Of the Supreme Court yesterday. for additional
counsel fees and alimony
The Winkemeier family troubles have been in
the courts for nearly two years. They started with
suit for absolute divorce which Mr.. Winkemeier
brought against his wife and In which he was un-
successful. Then Mrs. Winkemeier sued her hus-
band for a separation and that suit was still pend
ing when the defendant to her the evidence on
which she brought her action for absolute d-
vorce. Winkemeier did not defend the charges Of
infdelity. and appeared in the simply the
question Of alimony. Justice Gaynor. before whom
the case was tried, awarded TO Mrs. Winkemeier
permanent alimony at the rate Of $500 year. but
Winkemeier had another attorney substituted for
him and the case was reopened on the question of
alfmony. After long hearing. In which number
OF experts testified as TO the income of the candy
maker, Justice Gaynor reduced the alimony TO
A'4U year half Of which sum is for the educa-
ton and support Of the child. and will cease when
he passes out of the custody Of his mother. 1t is
this order with which the plaintiT is satisfied
and from which she desires appeal.
Mr.. Solely said that pending the appeal he would
ask the same alimony awarded on the judg-
ment and he would consent that il should be ap-
piled pro tanto on the final alimony awarded by
the Appellate Court. He wanted counsel fee of
500 also for the expenses of the appeal and $500
expenses already incurred in the case. which were
not included in the taxable costs. and which must
be paid before the appeal can be prosecuted. This
amount included the expenses of the commission
to Baltimore to take the testimony of Miss Ar
nett. the correspondent in the
The application was opposed by James c. Crop
eey representing Charles J. Patterson. counsel for
the defendant. He said that there
thority for compelling the defendant TO pay the
back expenses of the plaintiff and further 1t had
been held in New-York that such expenses could
not be demanded where the plaintiff could get
counsel fees the appeal from a judgment in
favor of the plaintiff, and there was reason why
the courts should put a premium such appeals
by awarding counsel fees 10 carry them So far
the case had cost the defendant about 1870, al
though he had not defended II. and Mr. Cropsey
said that he thought that was enough
Justice Osborne reserved his decision, but later
in the day he handed down this memorandum:
Plaintiff is allowed. pending appeal. alimony at
the rate OF so a week from May l. 1896 subject to
such payments the defendant had made
ALREADY made or may hereafter make thereon are
TO be applied pro tanto toward the permanent all
mony when IL is finally determined. Plaintiff is
allowed further counsel fee Of 500"