New-York tribune., 1900-11-09
GOULD AGAIN A WITNESS
MoWBRAY. THE DISCHARGED VALET.
TELLS ABOUT HIS INJURIES.

Howard C,ould was again called to testify yester
day IN the trial of the suit to recover $4,000 dam
ages for alleged breach of contract brought against
him nv his former valet Frank d Mowbray. before
Justice Giegerich in the Supreme Court The
plaintiff alleges that he was ordered on the night
q. July l. 1888. off some fireworks on the de-
fandant's yacht the Hildegarde. and was told that
II he did not do he would he discharged While
setting off the fireworks he badly injured.
he alleges. that his left eye had 10 be removed
and large wound was made in his breast he
further he was engaged for life at salary
of $50 month after he left the hospital by MT
C,ould In his complaint Mowbray also AYERS that
he was discharged by Mr.. Gould IN st petersburg
about four years ago Prior to his dismissal the
time by law in which he could have begun an
action for damages against MI Gould had expired
When the trial was resumed Mowbray was called
as q witness Mrs. Howard Gould was present.
Counsel for the plaintiff tried to show that NOW
hray was discharged because Mrs. Gould dlsllked
him. and by her orders. Mr.. Gould denied that he
dismissed Mowpray from his service at his vile
suggestion Mr.. Gould asked If he did not
say at the examination in May that ne discharged
Mowbray because he disobeyed orders whlle Al
Copeuhagen, and he replied in the affirmative lie
said that the first time he saw Mowbray lntoAi-
Gated was in 1884 while on board the Atalanta at
Cowes.
Mr.. Gould's testimony differed somewhat from
what he had said IN his deposition. When ques-
toned about this variance Mr.. Gould said; i made
2 mistake then. I'm right now.
Counsel for the plaintiff then said he proposed TO
show that Mownray discharged because he
and Mrs Gould had disagreement at No. Nor
fok-st London a fish bill. Mr.. Gould, after
a pause said he had vague recollection OF some
trouble about such u bin. He was asked If he re-
uernbered speaking to Now bray after MoWbrly
had shampooed Miss Clemilonss hair, and MISS
Clemmons had said 8IoBbTay must be discharged.
as he had put something in the water which took
some Of the peroxide from her hair. lie said ne
did not remember such conversation
Frank d. MowbraY. the plaintiff. also testified
Yesterday. sWore he first became acquainted
II with Mrs Gould Il No Is Norfolk-st., London. he
paid a fish bill for Mr.. Gould there. and gave the
Teceipted bill Mrs. Gould. Dho WAS then Miss
Clemmons. Mrs Gould insisted. he testified, mat
the bill had been paid and on this account she
then went to tell about the time he shampooed
Mrs. Gould's hair.
He said: I was shampooing Mr.. GouldS head
when Miss Clemmons said: Oh. Howard, wish
had a shampoo Then. at the suggestion of Mr..
Could / shampooed her hair, although / said
in the habit OF shapoolng women, but
could Subsequent to that time Mr.. Gould said to
Miss Clemmons: Kate, your hair Is growing
darker. What's the matter? She said: That hound
Frank put something in the water when he shaIT-
pooed me -
He further testified that he had never been IN
Mrs Hannah F. Schmidt of No West Thirty
frst-St. and William r. ShackfoTd. who said he
had been engaged captain Of yachts commits
stoned ny George and Howard Gould, testified in
favor Of the defence Counsel for the defence read
England. Pitt said in his deposition that Now
bray on the day he discharged intoxl-
Gated Counsel will sum up at 10 o'clock this
morning.