The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1909-06-26

episodes as TO which even the credible
witnesses for the defence testified were
episodes which might be just az we'll ex-
planned upon the theory, OF some sudden
by events which were not agreeable as
by any theory OF intoxication.
Il must say In view oil this mass OF teeti-
mony, and there have been some $50
witnesses produced here in the aggregate,
I find that the case 10 barren OF any salts
factory proof Of gross and habitual In
~toxication or Of undue indulgence In In
~toxicating liquor on the part Of the plain
tilt.
$50 far as the allegations OF improper
conduct with the witness Farnum are on
cerned there Is to be said In reference
TO that that the episodes which have been
testified to took place after the desertion
OF the plaintiff by the defendant. and they
could therefore furnish no justification
Of any kind for the original desertion
which took place in July, 1905. So far as
this record discloses the desertion by the
defendant OF the plaintiff was without
sufficient justification and was without
even sufficient ~provocation,
Now l have referred othose episodes
with reference to the witness Farnuln.
Some OF the testimony with reference
to these meetings or visits Is such as might
perhaps have furnished some Qualification
for q separation IL they had occurred
before the desertion and II the defendant
had objected to his wife meeting this
witness Farnum. or that OF course there
is no proof. There Is no proof that he
would seem as though she might have
been more discreet with respect to her con-
duct at that time and have avoided the
differences that must inevitably have 9
drawn from meeting Farnun. no matter
how innocent her relations might have
been. even II they were business relations
Upon the record in this case plaintih is
entitled to a judgment with costs.
GURINo THE ALLoW
i now come to the question o. the Al
lowanoe to DO made to the plaintiff: With
respect to that the situation is difficult.
The defendant Is a nan OF large wealth
and his income is approximately $4,000
a year, and while he has lived we'll and
upon a scale BETTING his wealth IT apc.
and is not disputed. that ne told her at the
time Of their marriage that he had never
spent more than a third Of his income in
any n year and did not propose to do 80
in h future.
1T appears afirmatively that he has
accumulated a private fortune, partly
at least as a result OF saving from his an
nual income, and it is not the business Of
the Court in granting alimony to dispose
Of the defendants property. The CON-
Germ OF the Court Is simply with the situa-
ton which presents itself OF determining
such sum as would be adequate and fair
to provide for the ~sustenance and the
general habits in life OF the plaintiff.
having in view the means Of the defen-
dant as we'll as their prior mode Of life.
Now a husband may b. as extravagant
as he pleases or as penurious as he pleases
with regard to his wife's expenses. but
as long as he provides her an adequate
and proper home and gives her the com
forts in life which his means enable him
tisd give the command of the law is salts
The Court can OF course make no
provision by way Of substitution for the
Injuries which the plaintiff enjoyed
while living with the defendant. / CON
fess that the question is one OF embar.
rassment and I have been unable to find
any rule to govern me. have power
duty. than to award the plaintiff a sum
which in my opinion will enable her to
live in comfort and ease and with dignity
befitting her station as the wife Of the
defendant. and from such light as ! have
been able to gather from the case l have
fixed that mount at 5000 q month
$50 900 a year. which Is about 500 a day
That may not perhaps seem large, in !
OF the defendants fortune it is but q
small percentage OF his income. 1t IL q
fair percentage OF the spending Of hii
income and l deem II O sufficient SUM tc
enable the defendant to live in comfort
and cas- and in q betting hei
station in life.
JUDGE DOESN'T WANT MRS. GOULD TO BIZ
OBLIGED TO WORK. 49,.
Il will say. Mr.. Shearn, and I say thif
not by way OF any idea that b con
~tinRency will arise, but l have given this
allowance which I deem fair to enable
the plaintiff herein to live without the
necessity Of indulging in labor. II she
should return to the stage the defendant
may then be at liberty to AXE steps to
reduce this allowance
Mr.. Nicoll then asked II Justice Bowling
wished counsel to submit the question
OF findings and the Court said: .
Il know what that means II you submit
requests to find. ! will find that the
plaintiff has not been guilty Of gross
habitual ~intoxication, that she has not
partaken Of intoxicating liquors to ex-
cess, that she had not been at any time
continuously under the influence OF
Mr.. Shearn said he thought that the case
was a proper one for extra allowance.
Justice Bowling said that the attorney
was entitled to an extra allowance IN
spite Of the fact that he has already re-
ceived two extra allowances from the
SOuTt. vi oiOoih St'A AS heN
ceived the secind allowance Of $4,000
awarded last week by Supreme Cour
Justice Giegerich. which made the total
of SIS. 600. He turned around and asked
Mr.. Nicoll il he intended to pay 1t and
Mr.. Nicoll said he didn't know.
Il may say that l have never seen a case
which has been more carefully prepared
and more orderly presented than this case
Twill give you IN ca IRA allowance Of 81, 600,
all that l can give you said the Court.
Justice Bowling then said concerning
the episode in the Bellevue-Stratford:
Il would never make any finding that
the witness Farnum VAS seen coming from
the room OF the plaintiff in this action
because that would % be justified from
the testimony, but l say TO you that l had
no question Of the good faith OF the wit
nesses Harrison and Garner
MIR. Nicoll asked for sixty days stay
and the Court finally allowed thirty. with
thirty days more to make the case on ap-
peal.
JULIAN STORY MARRIES.
Weds Mrs. BOhien Privately nj Maryle'
bone Registry once. London.