The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-11-21
VETERAN OWNER
AND TURFMAN
David Pulsifer Sued for AIimony
by His Wife Of 80 Years.
JUSTICE DENIES THE PETITION
Each Party Accuses The Other Of ExIrava.
gance, and Cogs Eater Into
The Trouble.
JUSTICE DENIES The PETITION

4>eW iOfh, NOV. E.--David Pulsuer,
owner OF the famous Tenny and a ia
miliar figure for the past ifty years on
the metropolitan turf. who will be TO his
next birthday. has been sued for sepsra-
tion by his wife. who charges that ne is
squandering a fortune on horses, dogs,
pool rooms and expensive acauaintances.
The veteran turfman lays all the trouble
TO his wife's extravagance In dogs Her
fondness for thoroughbreds and for TAX
ing blue ribbons at the dog shows Is re-
sponsible, he says. for the vanishing OF
much OF the family money.
Mrs. Pulsifer says that her husband
Hemingway" and she says she found
letter sent TO him by q young woman liv-
Ing In West Twenty-fourth street, who
preached him for not keeping an engage
ment.
Mr.. Puisifer refused to eat his meals
with the servants in the Kitchen. At
one time he took away from their, home
at New Rochelle one OF their blooded
dogs. which he carried about in his over
billiard rooms and hotel corridors. Mr..
Pulsifer retorts that the house was 80
completely Invested by his wife's dogs
The Pulsifers were married 30 years ago
and the first that was known OF their do
mesuc difference was when Mrs. Pulsi-
before pRtHioIs Justice Scott eat s yestsrday' Up to
within a few days ago hopes OF reunfting
the couple. both of whom admit that their
30 years OF married life have been happy,
were entertained.
DENIED PLEA FOR ALIMoNY.
As late as two weeks ago Mr.. Pulsifer
@ back 70 his n's town w1e hoess oess i %ess
Seventy ninth street Justice Scott de-
MED Mrs. Pulsifers motion for alimony;
some to Ss WHICH s hs Ssa nvfed Hfs hsr and
should quarrel after 50 many years.
wss on. rus O the w Wealthy ia msn sT q yess hs t ss
and owned a big stable. His fortune
has dwindied IN late years. but Is still
ceived over $4,000 from various sources.
Pulsifer declares that his income is only
1890 year. Mrs. Pulsifer wanted $50
weea alimony.
Pulsifer. according to his wife's story,
has sold nearly all his horses, and has
been wasting his money on the race
tracks and In pool rooms. He left her
she says. because she refused 10 sign any
more mortgages on their property.
Mr.. Pulsifer went away September 81
They were living for the summer In a
an express wagon. driven by a negro He
loaded on IL all his things. and then told
her he was going to New York to 1--we
He climbed into the seat beside the driver
and said:
This is fine thing Here am. worth
over 100000. and riding In an express
wagon"
For many years" says Pulsifer. my
wife lived IN luxury OF every kind and
Travelled extensively and expensively. she
ma ntaining a stable OF her own and driv-
ing valuable and speedy horses, and l In
dulged her and gratifed her every wish.
! do not regard the expense. however, but
only wish that were able TO continue It,
FORTUNE GONE TO THE DOGS.
mo one knows better than she where
all that money she admits I gnve her
went. I certainly did not squander IL. IL
went dailyto crafty her expensive tastes,
and whims. her purchase OF dogs at ex-
travagant prices. OF which she is the
owner OF about ls-she always owned
from is to ls-of which she housed all In
a little cottage occupied by us In New
Rochelle.
THAT the money has gone we both ad
mt. but while l sadly regret that. l am
the more grievod that after long and
apparently contented married life. cer-
tainly respectable one on my part, IL
should be In my declining days Of old age
that must be subjected 10 n charge In
public court room of cruel and inhuman
trea tment OF her whom II was my sole aim
In life 10 make happy"
Mrs. PuIsifer saws her husband pro-
posed some time ago that they separate
and after the papers were drawn up he
refused to sign them.
Since then" she charges. II have re-
ceived nothing but abuse and cruel treat
ment from him
As for the dogs. she SAYS her husband
approved Of all her purchases. She paid
$50 for one dog. and the same week her
husband paid $3.50 for one. She claims
that she sold many dogs which she bred
At handsome prices
1T Is pitlable thing" said Justice
Scott In denying her motion. that two
people who have been married 30 years
should quarrel bitterly over the question
n whether the wife will join In a mort
gage upon her husbands property"
He intimates that the success OF the |
suit Is very doubtful
1T 0llAn