The evening world. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1887-1931, 1908-11-18
HOWARD GOULO'S
WIFE GETS ONLY
$4,000 AL|MONY
Allowance by Court Pending
Trial of Suit Much Lower
Than She Asked.
SHE GETS NO INCREASE.
Judge Bischoff Speaks Ironic-
ally of Her Demand for
More of Gould's Cash.
SHE GETS NO INCREASE.


afternoon awarded alimony to the
amount OF $4,000 annually by Justice
Bischor in the Supreme Court, where
her suit for divorce from her husband.
Howard Gould, is pending.
Mrs. Gould asked for $4,000 annually.
and In the introduction Of evidence re-
Gently alleged that her expenses
amounted to 5000 monthly. The hear
ing Of the suit for separation will prob
ably come up in January.
The alimony is payable in monthly in
stalments. The alirnony allowed is the
same sum that Mr.. Gould has Nolun-
tarily allowed his wife since they sepa-
rated.
The decision is very long. 1t says IN
part:
Tt appears that the plaintiffs wife
is IN receipt OF an allowance OF $4,000
per year as provision voluntarily
made by defendant for her support. but
1t is insisted on the part OF the plain
tin that this sum is inadequate to the
needs of her station In life and that an
award OF $4,000 year IS sought upon
averments which the Court is asked 20
accept as supporting The proposition
that such an allowance would be no
more than reasonable"
Figuring It Up.
In It's last analysis says Justice
Blschofs. the argument o! counsel for
The plaintiff; may be stated 70 De that
$loO.UD d year should be allowed the
wife pending the action for 4 separat ton
because her husbands income is four
times that amount and she has become
versed in the details OF spending Il. and
while the schedule OF her. needs. which
she submits, appears 10 fall somewhat
short of 5000 4 month. II is per ha ps
conceivable that some OF the Items az
necessagies may be increased II she
should enter upon the task of distr!b-
ut!ng money for them.
III two automobiles, at 4 cost OF
5000 each, must become worthless
within a year. II may he necessary,
through a sight m!schance. to purchase
still another during that time. and the
plaintiffs estimate of $1,000 FOR this In
cident for her support could readily be
!ncrsa ed to $500 IL her experience OF
mechanical mat tiers Is reliab BILE.
Again the figures submitted for suita-
BILE apparel during the year might con-
side-ably be increased much beyond sl5.-
900, since the basis adopted is not what
is 10 be worn, but what is to be bought.
and in view OF the fact that the esti-
mate OF 5000 a month does not include
anything for charitable donations or for
travelling expenses, may take 1t as es-
tablished that the plaintiff could ply
sically succeed IN spending $1,000 year,
and this without her having assets to
show for the expenditure at the end OF
the year, other than articles which she
could conveniently give away to make
place for the disposal of the next years
cash"
What Wife Should Have,
The wife is to be maintained in
manner fitting her station In life, and
for this purpose the alimony may some
times be one-third, or even one-half, OF
the husbands income, II that result is
reasonableness. No rule has ever been
adopted by any court that wife lie en-
titled to one-third of her husbands in
come, irrespective 10 that incomes rela-
ton 10 reasonable expenditures by the
person who possesses IT, and In the case
of an income which Is many times ca
ccssive Of all reasonable needs for The
maintenance of family in lavish album
dance, tie principles Of apportionment
for the wifes support, which have been
applied to cases OF ordinary living in
comes, have no real "Ogency.
NOW, IN the present case. Mrs. Could
asserts certain station In life he
cause OF her marriage TO a man OF
great wealth, Tfst station las been
eXempifed through his establishing
very ex pensiye plares Of abode. his main
tenance of a large yacht and his en-
ployment 81 his income generally In
such wise as To obtain the luNuries
which are within the gift OF civiiiza-
ton. and while she lived with Ler hue-
band the participation In the surround
lngs Of this station The continuance
Of this style ~ living. however, was
solely nj the husbands will. lie was
entitled 10 spend his own money al his
own choice. hut no law Compelled him
u continue the spending, ami had he al
wife az a rato ~ siaso ~ tsS,eA a year.
certainly no court would he found %
froWn upon lis policy or 10 give heed 10
The wife plant that she lad s1nsrsa
s1.Hhn. injury 10 hA- sta'LNs - ih-'