New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-11
DIX. VAN DE WATER WAITS
WATT CASE PENDING.
Failure to Anszcer Would Mean Dis
missal-DiUorce SUNRISE

mar steps. II any will be taken by the Rev.
DR.. George r. Van De Water. rector Of 81 Az
dreFr's Episcopal Church, named as co-rasnord-
ent by ex-Commodore Archibald Watt of tba
American Yacht Club, in his counter suit for d.
vorce from his wife who sued in this county
Tor a separation on the grounds Of cruelty and
abandonment. 10 vind!cate his name as was his
intention should the ex-corurnodore's suit come
10 trial here. now that Mrs. Watt has obtained
a divorce in suit brought and heard before
referee in Orange County. in which the clergy
mans name not mentioned had not been
decided yesterday
Justice BischoT. who is a vestryman in Dr.
Van De Waters church said regarding the case
Mrs. Watts suit for separation. to which her
husbands counter suit brought is still
penang When II comes up for trial. should
neither side answer. the court would have no
option but 10 dismiss both suits. and that would
END the matter so far as DR.. Van De Water. the
co-respOn dent. is concerned.
Dr. Van De Water might bring action against
Mr. Watt for wrongfuy naming him as CO.
respondent but he could not recover damages
unless ne proved that MS having been named as
correspondent was pure, wanton malice. Mr.
entity enters in the privilege category More
over, should Dr. Vanh De Water decide 10 sue
! and eventually win his case he would only make
matters infinitely worse for himself.
Asked If the appointment Of a committee from
St, Andrews vestry to investigate Dr.. Van De
Waters conduct might afford DIR. Van De
| Water the opportunity TO clear his name the
| justice said:
That would seem to be the only alternative,
| but I doubt if II would answer. The church
| would have standing and could not compel
Mr.. and Mrs. Watt or any one else to attend
and testify. Their lawyers could laugh at such
a request. I should certainly not advise such a
| proceeding"
The justice some months ago wrote a letter
! fCr publication exDreSSing the OuiniOu that Tr
Van lie Water would disprove the charges
| against him. William H. Sage, IT.. Dr. Van De
Waters lawyer. said that yesterdays announce
| rnent was the first intimation he had received
| that any such action by Mrs Watt was conten-
plated, and added:
What proceedings shall take because Of the ac-
| Iion IT orange county DO not now know. If the
have the effect Of making the action in New-York
severed by the former action. could not be more
severed by the latter action. OF course, 1 shall
vigorously oppose any dscontinuance of the action
in this county.
Howe Hummel, counsel for Mrs. Watt in
her original suit. said yesterday that they knew
( nothing about the Orange County suit, while
Henry L. Schuereman, Of Hoadly. Lauterbach
& Johnson, virtually admitted that his firm
was representing Mrs Watt One report that
Assemblyman Louis Bedeu was associated with
this firm as counsel for Mrs. Watt was denied
by Mr.. Scheuremau and Mr.. Bedell,
Dr.. Van De Water. at his home No Z West
Northumberland -tvent y-second-st last night
declared he had not decided what, If any, action
he would take
I know nothing at all about the case" he
said, and until shall have consulted with my
lawyer. Mr. Sage. cannot tell what I shall do.
That is all ] So ="
The witnesses heard by Referee Nussbaum
testified that Mr.. Watt had not been true 70 his
marriage vows. The defendant offered a general
denial but called no witnesses.