The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-04-23
Jay Seeks Heavy Damages
From BOuChard.
The Testimony in the Case
Was Very Conflicting.
An Appellate Court Decision--A Long
Criminal Docket.

A picture of the troubled life OF one
to his career for the last year or SO was
given in Judge Wilbur's court this morn
ing. The parties who told the dismal
story were Lewis +. Gay and his wife,
Mary Il. Gay co-plaintiff with him
in suit brought against Octave Bouch-
ard for slander. The latter, who is
rich retired contractor, denied in the
most emphatic manner the use of the
slanderous terms.
The defendant was at one time the
father-inl-aw OF the plaintiff the latter's
first wife being Mr.. Bouchard's Is daughter.
The latter died some time ago, leaving
five children and on August q, 1894, Mr..
Gay married again, and il is claimed ~
Mrs. Gay that the defendant told her
husband she was seen walking with an
other man toward Jsckson avenue bridge,
and that she was person OF vile char
acter and unfaithful TO her husband. On
account OF the charges Mrs. Gay seeks
damages, which, putting a monetary
value on them, she places at s5eOl.
Lewis +. Gay was the first witness,
and he testified that he married the de-
fendant's daughter in 1888, and that after
her death he married his present wife,
Miss May Eliaz beth Foley, on Augugt z,
1895. That on the 11th of April be went
to visit the defendant and the charges
above referred to were made against the
present Mrs. Gay, and the witness said
advised him TO get divorce from her as
she was not proper person for a wife
or to take caro- of the children that the
witness had by his former wife.
Mr.. Gay further testified that in conse-
quence OF the charges made he broke up
housekeeping, sold the furniture that
was in their once happy home on Flora
street and his wife went TO the charity
building TO reside. He said the reason .or
his acting as be did was, he believed the
stories told him about his wife. In
about week he found out the statements
were not true and he returned to his wife
and they went to boarding together.
MIR. Mccarthy, in his cross examina-
tion, tried to show that the real reason
for the breaking up of his home by the
witness was due TO his desire to get rid of
his children, but this Mr.. Cay strenu-
ously denied. Several questions relating
to the domestic arrangements OF MIR. Gay
were asked by MIR. Mccarthy. And the
witness denied that re was advised by
his counsel 10 send his wife TO the char
ity building in order that bigger dam
ages might be obtaiued in slander suit.
Mary T.. Gay, wife OF the previous wit
nees, testified that on the 1lth of April,
1895, becoming vexed at the failure Of her
husband 10 return home FOR his supper,
she went TO tho Bouchard home, think
ing that he might be there. She thought
that the defendants family had not a
very great liking for her, but was greatly
surprised TO hear Mr.. Bouchard use the
language before referred to, which she did
hear from the piazza Of the latter's house.
On cross examination she said Mr. Hop
kins, whom she consulted about bringing
a suit against the defendant, advised her
to go to The charity building as she had
no other. place to go after her husband
put her out.
Octave Bouchsrd, the defendant, testi-
fed that be never used any OF the Ian
guage imputed TO him and that he did
not believe he had ever spoken TO Mrs.
Gay In his life and lid not know enough
about her character to talk about IL. lie
said that Mr.. Gay came TO his house and
said his wife was a regular devil, and he
was going OF get a divorce from her ss
she put his children cut of their home.
Mrs Bsuchard, when these remarks were
made, said that a boy claimed to- have
seen Mrs Gay going towards jackson
avenue bridge with spnother man other
than her husband.
Nothing material was developed In the
cross examination OF this witness, and
his wife was neyt called TO the witness
stand and she substantiatod her husband.
Il. 3. Hopkins and ~. G.. Curtis were
attorneys for the plaintiff and L. 4. Nc