The Tacoma times. [volume] (Tacoma, Wash.) 1903-1949, 1909-06-25
Charge Against
Her Disproved;
Alinony Is Cut
Millionaire's Wife Scores Great Victory in Action
for Separation Clears Her Name Of
Guilt Richly Gowned, She Appears in Court
on Last Day of Trial to Declare That Witnesses
Testified Falsely Against Her.
(By United Press Leased Wire. J

(By United Press Leased Wire.)
NEW YORK, June 26.~--Jus-
tice Bowling this Afternoon COM
pletely exonerated Mrs. Catherine
Clemmons Gould of all the charges
made against her by her husband,
Howard, granting her a separation
and alimony OF $4,000 a month.
Charges Unproven, Says Judge.
In his decision Justice Dowling
said: .-
"The charges against Mrs.
Gould are not only unproven but
the plaintiff has gone beyond
what was required of her and
the testimony is vastly in her
favor.
"The episodes charged as attrip-
utable to drunken condition
might readily be charged to ex-
citement, but not to intoxication.
"The episodes In charging I'M
propriety with Dustin Farnum all
took place after 1906, when Gould
had deserted his wife and there
fore may not be brought up as ex-
tenuating his assertion"
In fixing the alimony the court
referred to the income OF Gould
land said:
Taking into consideration thar
$4,000 worth of Jewels bought
by Mrs. Gould were charged to her
husband after their separation and
the other things he has given her
since then, ] fix the alimony at
$4,000 month"
Mrs. Gould Glad.
Mrs. Gould declared she regard
ed the verdict as complete vindlca-
tion and worth more than all the
money in the world.
Gould declined to make state
ment.
Denying that she had any af-
fection for Dustin Farnum and
charging that every. witness who
had testified to having seen her
Intoxicated swore falsely, Mrs.
Gould resumed her story on the
witness stand today.
Richly Gowned.
Mrs. Gould was gowned In a
rich black dress and wore costly
pearls. She made good appear
ance on the witness stand and was
perfectly self-possessed under
cross-examination.
"These witnesses swore falsely
in every detail" charged Mrs.
Gould when the subject of her APP
Matte For Iiouor wao fnfraAuaaA
Met Farnum Many Times.
Attorney Gould. representing
Gould, conducted the cross-exam-
ination. He grilled the plaintiff
numerically on the subject of her
relations with Farnum but she
proved match for him In bat
tie of wits. She admitted meet
ing Farnum upwards of nineteen
times on various occasions but up
held her contention that Farnum
was IAN acquaintance" and not
an admirer, but consistently evad-
ed Nicoll's questions. The law
lyer was unsuccessful in the ar
tempt to have her tell the color
of Farnum's eyes, how broad hIa
shoulders were. whether he wan
Clean shaven or whether his hafr
was long or curly. She rarried
his questions cleverIy and NicolI
appeared far from satisfied with
his attempt.
Mrs. Gould swore that her talks
with Farnum we're of a business
nature, connected with a proposed
theatrical venture. Nicoll sue-
gested that the topic of business
must have been exhausted during
their ten-hour auto trip but Mrs.
Gould replied:
'sThe theatrical business as q
topic of discussion is practically
$4,000 Not Much.
In reply to the plaintiffs state
ment that she felt wretched, had
nothing to do and no money.
Nicoll referred to the fact that
she had been receiving from 81, "
1000 to $4,000 month besides
having had her hotel bills paid.
Mrs. Gould admitted this. but
Isaid:
THAT isn't must money. II Is
not nearl yenough for what r
WANTED"
When Mrs. Gould left the stand
la number of unimportant Wit
lnesses were called