The herald., 1898-04-27
MRS. GOULD'S DIVORCE
Old THE MAN FLEE OR WAS HE
FIREDp
THE POINT NOT YET SETTLED
Funny Suit Of an Ancient Dame
Whom q Young Fellow Married
for Her Dough-

Mrs. Maximiliennc Gould, woman u
years OF age, looking much younger, but
dressed like grass widow OF 80, with
straw sailor hat, bangs and hard-feat-
urc6 face, was an applicant for q divorce
before Judge Clark yesterday afternoon.
Her case had been tossed around for some
time in the different departments of the
superior court, and came to an anchor
finally In Department two She wanted
q divorce from her husband, Daniel Web
ster Gould, on the ground of desertion.
Mrs. Gould, who said that her name was
Maximilienne, Chaillier, testified that she
married Gould on March oath, two years
ago. She became satisfied afterward that
he took her for her money, and not for her
good looks. He was As years old and she
Il. She had become acquainted with him
at Peniel hall, and believed him to be
good Christian. He promised to buy her
a horse and buggy, and that would keep
her in great shape. All she would have
to do would be to sell her corner property
on Wall and Winston street; he would
open store with the proceeds, and they
would be happy. These two turtle doves
lived together for six days. On the sew
enth Gould said to his wife that he needed
ST. She told him to split the difference and
strike somebody else for the other case.
He took the dollar, packed his trunk, and
he never came back.
On cross-examination Mrs. Gould recol
lected that her husband did come back one
evening at Christmas time last year. while
she was reading the Bible. He shook the
gate, and she called a policeman.
The greatest difficulty was experienced
old 1oA Ax-'c c n
French woman, and insisted IN talking
"pidgin English to the court. Her in
terpreter was very inexperienced and
when she spoke French then it was the
answers of the party that caused trouble.
She denied that she had told Daniel
Webster to get out. She loved him, and
wanted him to take care of her, but he got
q wagon, picked up his trunk and left She
was asked if she had not dragged the trunk
out of the house herself. Vat. me, moi,
draggee zee dronk dehors zee house; nev-
aire, nevaire Zee dronk he was as beeg
as dees tings." pointing to the stenograph-
ers desk; "eef me try 1t no can do. Els
no possiblee."
"You did not tell Mr.. Gould that he had
married you for your money!" asked the
attorney for defendant.
"Huh-huh,'' with negative shake of the
sailor hat and bangy wig, ''nevaire, sare,
nevaire."
Mrs. Gould was then permitted to leave
the stand. Her marital troubles have
been often ventilated in the courts. About
twelve years ago her first husband, Le-
brun, by whom she has grown sons, died.
She remained a widow for several years,
and then her matrimonial ventures grew
fast and furious, having their solution in
the divorce court, as matter of course.
There was nothing small, either, about
Mr.. Daniel Webster Gould's answer to the
complaint. He denied all the facts. and
asked that the old lady be required to shell
out to his counsel, Brooks & Trasl, $3.50,
so that he might properly prepare and pre-
sent his defense. In another suit which
has been pigeon-holed, Daniel WEBSTER
had the gall to ask that the court order
the old lady to pay him alimony pending
the trial
Attorney T. D. Reymert was called for
the defendant and exhibited an agreement
of separation drawn up between Mr.. and
Mrs. Gould. Officer Hill testified that some
time in 1896 he saw big crowd at the cor
ner of Wall and Winston streets and
learned that Mrs. Gould had thrown Gould
out of the house and didn't want him
there any moro. Mrs. Gould was inside
and Mr.. Gould was in the street and he
told the policeman that he would very
much like to get into the house again.
The defendant swore that when his wife
fired him she told him that If he came
back her son would kill him. He gave a
brief description of the honeymoon. Just
about an hour after the wedding, he ex-
planned, he had to take off his coat, procure
shovel and go to work on the sewer In
the yard, as it was being repaired then.
From the hour of his marriage up to the
moment of his forcible departure it was
work, work, all the time.
Stress was laid by defendants attorneys
upon the former suit. alluded to before,
which was brought by Mrs. Gould against
her husband and which has never been
dismissed, and upon the articles of separa-
tion drawn up nine days after the couple
were married, Mr.. Trask contending that
this document showed conclusively that
If the litigants lived apart it was by mutual
consent, and in such case Mrs Gould
could certainly not set up willful desertion
as ground of divorce. Judge Clark took
the case under advsement.
LOUISA LEFT