The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-11-08
Continued from First Page)


for one person as it does for two. and
it costs more IN proportion for one per
son 10 live than it does for two"
Il have been accustomed TO horses
and do not know why l should give them
up simply because my husband has I'M
justihedly left me"
1T scarcely pays to keep an automo-
bile longer than one year.
mo dress al OsbOrns, LiChenstein's
Wanamaker's. or Altman's, that amy
woman OF means would be apt TO r'ur-
chase. costs under $50"
This jewelry bin $4,000 / submit
cannot be called extravaganza either, for
the wife of a man Of my husband 5
large wealth. 1t certainly viii stand
comparison with the jewelry purchased
by the .''is@ - che defendants brother
George Gould. which / am credibly in
formed and believe to be valued at
81. 2O0.OoO."
Mrs. Gould takes up in detail the al
legations of her husband regarding her
actions at various hotels and cafes.
She denies them in toto ans~insists that
most of the charges are made by dis
charged employees or others under her
husbands influence.
Husbands Accounts.
IN his answer Mr.. Gould declares
that he has paid on his wifes account
for bills. contracted by her since their
separation, $I09. 40 in addition 20 the
S2,O57 monthly allowance which he says
she has received Stree November Of last
year.
While Mrs. Gould says she believes
her husbands fortune amounts TO Sl5,-
100000, Mr.. GOulh pleads that he is 50
poor that he has been unable . put
either OF his two yachts, Mag IRA or
Niagara ". into commission. He says
his personal loss during the recent
financial depression amounted TO about
$30O. 900.
Mr.. Gould rehearses his wife's career
from the time OF their marriage, and
alleges numerous instances Of mIscon-
duct. He denies that ne surrounded
her with detectives at the St Regis,
but says; To d certain extent, how
ever, and upon occasions when sus-
pected the likelihood OF misconduct, the
plaintiffs movements were watched and
reported to me"
Concerning Mrs. Gould's plea that de
tectives prosecuted her Mr.. Gould says:
The facts ia the case are that, hav-
ing reasons TO question the propriety
OF the plaintiffs relations with an
actor known as Dustin Fanum. and
having learned that the said Farnum' 5
itinerary would bring him 20 Lynch
burg on a given date, I surUnised that
If my suspicious were correct, the plain
tiff would make this the occasion for
a meeting between Mr.. Farnum and
herself.
Watched by Detectives.
anticipating this possibility, fdetec-
tiyes IN my behalf were sent to Lynch
burg to take up their quarters IN the
Hotel Carroll. In said city. In this re-
speCt my precautions were not taken in
vain. as, on information and belief,
the plaintiff and Mr.. FaTnum did meet
at the Hotel Carroll In Lynchburg, and
Mr.. FaTnum spent much OF his time
In Mrs. GOuld's apartment I'm said NOEL
between Sunday afternoon. November
IF. 1906. and Tuesday morning, November
%, 1906, when Mrs. Gould left the hotel
for New York on a train which left
at 5:87 a. m"
A new accusation Is brought against
Mrs. Gould In the affidavit OF Alfred
Richardson. a former steward Of Castle
Gould. who says that one night, during
the absence Of Mr.. Gould, a man named
Colbert was admitted to the house.
Mrs. Gould denies that she knows
anyone named Colber- and brands as
false the stewards statement OF Col
bert's visit TO Caste Gould. She also
swears that the statement OF James
Lauretson, her former footman, to the
effect that the maid told him a man
was visiting Mrs. Gould in her apart
ment in the Waldorf, in Mr.. GouId's
absence one day In January, 1904. IS
untrue and adds that most OF the aft