The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-06-07
COULD CASE
 ARGUMENTS IN Grounds Upon Which Wife Brings Action for
 Separation.
CHARGES ARE SERIOUS.
Habits of Husband Make Him Unfit Person to
 Live With.

New York. June 6.-The case of Mrs, Howard Gould who has instituted suit for a separation from her husband. Howard Gould, was given it's first pub- lie action in court to-day. The oc- casion was the hearing of arguments on motion of counsel for Mr. Gould to strike out certain allegations in Mrs. Gould's complaint. Arguments of con- siderable length were made both for and against the motion, and at their conclusion the attorneys were given until Monday to file briefs in the case. The grounds on which Mrs. Gould is suing her husband as shown by parts of the complaint read by counsel for Mrs. Gould, are, first, abandonment of Mrs. Gould by her husband; second, the allegation that the habits and con duct of MT. Gould are such that 1t was improper for his wife to live with him; third, that since September last he has neglected his wife and refused to provide for her except that he paid for her support at New York hotel since that time; and further, that Gould had treated his wife with ex- treme cruelty, employed spies to harass her, caused her mail bag to Ia tempered with, maintained illicit re- lations wit hwomen of bad character and that he employed an ex-convict and several New York detectives to se- cure improper evidence against Mrs. Gould. Delanoey Nicol1, who argued the case for MT. Gould said that every allegation against MT. Gould will be denied when the answer to the suit is filed. He maintained that the charees to which he objected as scandalous and irrelevant did not tend to support the allegation of cruelty. He especial ly objected to the charge that for three years Gould had maintained illicit and immoral relations with women of bad character and had conducted himself Tn this respect in an open and notor- ious manner. He declared that the charges were made for the purpose of putting the defendant in an embarras- sing position and that in other cases where such allegations have been in- troduced the court has stricken them out. ''The allegations are decidedly sweeping" said he. .~The nkaintiff does not make any specifications, mention any specific cases or even tell exactly with what misconduct the defendant Is charged. There is absolutely no reason for such charges in the complaint for separation on the ground of cruelty.s
 In replying to MT. Nicoll's argument, Clarence Shearn counsel for Mrs. Gould, said that if the defence would ask for bill of particulars, specific charges would be made of so serious a character that he would not presume to mention them in court in the course of his argument. we have tried to make this case as little seandaIous as possible" said Mr Shearn, and do not want to make the complaint any more specific in open court, but if the allegation that the defendant for three years maintained illicit and immoral relations with women of bad character and conducted himself notoriously and openly in this respect Is too general we will make it more specific. It is true that we do not say whether the de- fendant's actions were adulterous or worse, but we will be glad to submit a full bill of particulars if it is asked for"
 MT. Shearn argued that if the court should strike out these allegations from the complaint it would do the plaintiff an irreparable injury by not allowing her to prove them when the case comes to trial. On the other hand if they were permitted to remain the defendant still would have the remedy left at the time of trial, and he con- tended that the simple allegation against him in the complaint can do him no harm until they are proven in open court.