Republican farmer., 1909-04-02
$62,5OO FOR
 ALIMONY FOR 
 MRS. BASSETT
lsferee Makes Recommendation in Di. ysrce Suit Against sich Rabber Man.
ehafges of UufaithfrIness Abandoned md fidisg Based on Desertion
 Charge.
&nbaad Feund to be Worth $..S0, 0,eoo- E Influential in Affairs of United Statsy Rubber Retaining Coroany.' Eofmer Home Was Derby.

&c59ew Haven. March 26.-In the report - his findings in the divorce suit of EXr1. Annie E. Bassett of Ansonia and formerly of this city. against her hus- |b0na, Theodore w. Bassett. an officer E8f tho United States Rubber Reclaim ln9 oqmpany of New York city. as filed ' 1n the superior court yesterday. State 161gee William Hammersley holds {hak Nrn. B1ssett's allegation of deser- 1Io0 hes been proved. On the question <V Vf alimony the referee finds that MT nA6oofk 10 worth $1s0. 900, and by agres- uI6nt nf counsel. he fixes $s2 500 as the 6uno0nt of alimony which Mrs. Basset ! 0houId receive If she is granted a de- 1xoS by Judge Case when the matter &ones bafore him in the superior court
 1Gtn Bassett is the daughter of Ed
 o q Bryant. deputy collector of in
 al revenue in this city and until
 marriags to MT. Bassett on Octob-
 IT 1891 she lived in this city. and
 Ho well known in social circles here.
 Basuott at the time of his mar
 <r6 Nraa In the rubber manufactur-
 6untness at Derby and was reputed
 && one of the richest men in the
 SnGx4nck valley.
 1SX Bassett,s suit was filed in the
 f3or court a few months ago. The
 un1 complaint made charge
 |151k AGr. Bassett of acts of unfaith-
 76n1 on divers dates between Janu-
 [ 1 1904. and July. 1905, committed.
 M, &1tV The complaint further alleged de- S5lt5on dating from April IT. 1905, on {1a1eh date. the complaint set out. MT. 7&1etk left his wife and had neglected . &n prov1de for her support from that AflriSe tln the suit was filed. For a time 1n1v tho usual pleaydings and proceed TIT in c contested divorce act on H6r11d fhe pregress of the suit. but 7 Inch is: last. counsel in the case. 1&li Eo roforrod to State Referee Will Hammers1oy for . hearing on the 1e1n T11s hearing was held at Hart 1t1 1Eonday. At that time some sec 52&cv Was maintatned as to the nature 3 fho pruceeding. but the affair leaked 0nk to-day when the report was filed v1o offered at the hearing before the r&lexee to prove the charge of in 1ellty. This allegation was disre- nIded by Attorneys Williams and
 1zz3mnn acting for Mrs. Bassett and X 1I1Y dependsd entirely on the alleged M(noT<fou to prove their client was en- E16d to Q divorce
 Reoereo Hammersley says in his re- 1F& tl1af the desertion charge has been &<oV61; but no reference is made to W E<E 0<her charge brought against Mir. nffe<t The report gives on'y brief m Of the evidence introduced but E 4f Greater ienkth with the aues-
 m 4 a7Imony. Mrs. Bassett alleged W 1 h1r huf band was worth $500. .000 in Y - o6fafa and personal rroperty and
 l<& &tk9cnment of $500 900 was mad. on ' 2 IRoeerty when the suit was insti- 1<< Un1ar the law Mrs. Bassett 1oI16 n allowed alimony to the &i(naGut of cre-thi-d of her husband g @[1n4e. but the referee finds that MT.
 6tt q worth but 3z8o. 900. By con- G0<s of counsed he fixes $62.500 as a ~ &G6omAb1e sum to be paid to her ir Ulo opont Of q decree being granted. H8U 1n len than one-fourth of the <[o[fe and is the sum which she will 5Eo6ahly be awarded inasmuch as her &0Ul11 have consented to this ar-
 nc finding of the referee is not flna1 Ills report will come up before z 7udee Case tomorrow for final dis