Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-06-26

New York, June 25.-Katherne Glenn
mons Gould obtained a legal separation
with alimony from her husband How
| ard Gould, third son of the late jay
| Gould, by a decision of Justice Bowling
| in the supreme court today after a
trial which had lasted nearly three
week With the exception of aimony,
her victory was complete, but in this
phase of the case the court decided that
$50, 600 a year was sufficient, though in
her suit Mrs. Gould asked for $3.50. 600
| She mas been receiving $4,000 a year
from Mr.. Gould, SO that the amount
| fixed by the court is but a Slight in
crease over what he had voluntarily
allowed her and is but a small fraction
of the amount named in her suit.
| 1t was in the vindication of charges
| of intoxication and her alleged rela-
ton with Dustin Farnuin, the actor,
| that Mrs Gould scored most strongly.
for Notwithstanding the long array of
witnesses for Mr. Gould who gave such
testimony as to make Mrs. Gould APP
pear at times as defendant. rather than
plaintiff, the court held that the Tn
| tOXication'' may have been due to eX-
element. AS to Dustin Farnum it was
held that her association with him
came after Mr.. and Mrs. Gould sep
arated, and that the husband, appar-
| emily made no objection
| Immediately after the decision Delan-
| cy Nicoll for Mr. Gould asked for a
60-days stay of judgment. but Clarence
J. Shearn for the plaintiff asked for an
| immediate Judgment. Justice Bowling
compromised by making the stay 81
| days. Mr.. Shearn then asked for an
extra allowance for counsel fees and
the court gave him $4,000. This. to-
| gether with the $4,000 allowed re-
Gently and the original allowance of
$4,000, will bring his fees to ST.. 900, with
an additional sum of $4,000 for expenses
Mrs. Could had been left quite to her
self during the trial. but after the YER
diet she was kept busy receiving con-
gratulations. AS the decision was read
she Kept her head cast down and seem
ell disappointed by the allowance. As
| soon as the case was closed, however
she snook hands with Mr. Shearn and
thanked him for his conduct of her
| case Then she beamed upon her
friends and even smiled upon the down
cast trio of lawyers who had fought
| for her husbands interests.
| Howard Gould hurried from the room
as soon as the decision was given and
| declined to discuss the case.
| Mrs uould left the court with Mr.
| Shearn and drove away in an auto
mobile Mr.. Shearn said that either
| party in the suit could bring action for
absolute divorce, but that Mr. Could
could not base such an action on the
| charges involved in the suit just de-
! cided.
| Mrs. Gould issued the following state
| ment:
| 81 am the happiest woman living to-
night because | have been SO complete
| " vindcated before the entire world
of all the horrible charges. Not one
little pang shot through my heart at
the smallness of the Automatically
supreme joy and the deepest gratitude.
| | send thousand loving thanks to
all who have helped me-"
| Justice Dowlngs decision says in
part:
$50 far as the defence has sought to
sllbstantiate by proof its allegations OF
gross habtual intoXication upon the
part of the plaitliff. not only has the
defendant failed TO support that ale
CATION by satisfactory proof. but on
the contrary, the paitniff has gone
beyond what she was directly required
to do and find afIirmatively that the
prepOnderance of testimony is over
whelmingly in her favor. 1t is appar-
ent that many of these episodes to
which even the creditable witness foi
the defence testified might just as wei
be explained upon the theory of some
sudden excitement, or some sudden an
ger.
$50 far as the allegations of improp-
err conduct with the witness Farnun
are concerned there is to be said witt
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 fol
the original desertion. which took plac'
III July. 1906. So far as this record dis
closes the desertion by the defendant
OF the plaintiff was without sufficient
justification in this case and was with
out even sufficient provocation.'
Continuing as to the plaintiffs meet
ings with Farnum, the court said:
"There is no proof that he. the de
PENDANT, knew of these meetings a
any time There is no proof that ht
ever objected to them or sought to pre-
vent their continuance. While it is true
that they transpired at time wher
the defendant had deserted the plain
tiff and when she might have, as SHE
has testified, felt the need of syhpa
thv and aid il would seem as though
she might have been more discreet with
respect to her conduct at the time anc
have avoided the differences that must
inevitably have been drawn from meet.
ing Farnum, no matter how innocent
her relations might have been.