The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-03-26
$62,5OO FOR
 ALIMONY FOR
 MRS. BASSETT
Referee Makes Recommendation in Di. yorce Suit Against Rich Rubber Man.
Charges of UnfaithfuIness Abandoned and Fiding Based on Desertion
 Charge.
Husband Found to be Worth $.SO,0O0- Is Influential in Affairs of United States Rubber Retaining Company. Former Home Was Derby.

New Haven, March 26.-In the report Of his findings in the divorce suit of Mrs. Annie E. Bassett of Ansonia and formerly of this city, against her hus- band, Theodore w. Bassett, an officer of the United States Rubber Reclaim ing company of New York city, as filed ill the superior court yesterday, State Referee William Hammersley holds that Mrs. Bassett's allegation of deser- ton has been proved. On the question of alimony the referee finds that MT.
 Bassett is worth $2S0,000, and by agree
 ment of counsel. he fixes $62. 500 as the amount of alimony which Mrs. Bassett should receive if she is granted a de- cree by Judge Case when the matter comes before him in the superior court tomorrow. Mrs. BaSsett is the daughter of Ed son s. Bryant, deputy collector of in ternal revenue in this city, and until her marriage to MT. Bassett on Octob-
 CT 15. 1891, she lived in this city and
 was well known in social circles here.
 MT. Bassett at the time of his mar
 riage was in the rubber manufactur-
 ing business at Derby and was reputed
 to be one of the richest men in the
 Naugatuck valley.
 Mrs. Bassett's suit was filed in the
 superior court a few months ago. The
 original complaint made a charge against MT. BasSett of acts of unfaith-
 fulness on divers dates between Janu- ary 1. 1904, and July, 1905, committed,
 as alleged, at Derby and in New York city. The complaint further alleged de-
 sertion dating from April IT. 1905, on
 which date. the complaint set out, MT. Bassett left his wife and had neglected to provide for her support from that time till the suit was filed. For a time only the usual pleadings and proceed
 ings in a contested divorce action marked the progress of the suit, but on March 13. last, counsel in the case.
 by agreement, requested that the ac- tion be referred to State Referee Will liam Hammersley for a hearing on the facts. This hearing was held at Hart ford Monday. At that time some sec recy was maintained as to the nature of the proceeding, but the affair leaked out to-day when the report was filed here.
 r. developed to-day that no evidence was offered at the hearing before the referee to prove the charge of in fidelity. This allegation was disre- garded by Attorneys Williams and Hartman. acting for Mrs. Bassett and they depended entirely on the alleged desertion to prove their client was en- titled to a divorce.
 Referee Hammersley says in his re- port that the assertion charge has been proved, but no reference is made to the other charge brought against MT. Bassett. The report gives only a brief recital of the evidence introduced but deals at greater length with the ques- ton of alimony Mrs. Bassett alleged that her husb band was worth s500.OOo in real estate and personal rroperty and an attachment of $300.000 was made. on his property when the suit was insti- tuted. Under the law Mrs. Bassett could be allowed a1in1ony to the amount of one-third of her husbands estate. but the referee finds that MT. Bassett is worth but s2SO.000. By con- sent of counsel he fixes $62, 800 as reasonable sum to be paid to her i.f the event of a decree being granted. This is less than one-fourth of the estate and is the sum which she will probably be awarded inasmuch as her counsel have consented to this ar engagement
 The finding of the referee is not final. His report will come up before Judge Case tomorrow for final dis position.