New-York tribune., 1910-02-04
MRS. BROKAW WINS
GETS $4,000 4 YEAR.
Also Decree of Separation
from Her Husband.


MineoIa. Long Island. Feb. 5 (SpeciaD--
Mrs. Mary Blair Brokaw won her suit for
s. separation from William Gould Brokaw.
according TO the decision filed with the
County Clerk of Nassau to-day by
Justice Harrington Putnam, of the Su-
prerne Court, before whom the case was
tried. Aiimony was fixed at $4,000 year.
one-half the amount asked by Mrs Bro
ksN Justice PUTNAM finds that she is
entitled 10 a decree because her husband
conduct renders il unsafe for her TO llVe
with him and because OF his act OF anah-
donnent and separation in December lSoe-
The hearing lasted seventeen days and
two nights Justice Putnams opinion. COW
ering twelve typewritten pages, goes fully
into the evidence and reviews the marriage
relations of the plaintiff and defendant
down to their final separation Beginning
his opinion with the assertion that it is not
necessary 10 review the twenty-four or
more distinct charges pleaded in the com
p,aint or the recriminstory matters
pleaded in the answer or brought out dur
ing the hearing. Justice Putnam takes up
sn agreement which was drawn UP shortly
after the marriage. On this point he says:
In view OF the many contradictions
arising in the mass OF testimony, II.e LIZ
court looks first at the written agreement
of February u. le0S-within about four
months after the marriagt-whIch a., vas vas
prepared at F'airview, y. c, by Dr. battle-
from the professional relations he sus-
tained 10 the parties. as well as nus loHS
acquaintance with the defendant the aoC-
tors testimony IN regard TO lhe dslSc
1uent- dictated by him and written oul by
the defendants secretary, becomes M
rlortaut The agreement was signed bN
The DEFENDANT, followed by Mrs. Brokaw's
signature in concurrence anu was VII VII
messed by the Marquis HeTmosa, close
Walter Byford. the secretary, and Dr.
Rattle. who was called as a witness ny
the defendant, testified that q serious dlI-
ference had arisen which occasioned IN
jury to the plaintiffs health. producing a
this agreement had been drawn up IN
order 10 arrange q. temporary separation
between the parties BY It me aelet1uaHt m an
torneys, with this significant clause; IN
The mean time L also pledge I?ysen 10
leave Mrs. Brokaw unmolested III every
manner Whatsoever. -
This instrument, prepared and witnessed
by the defendants friends, is strong eVl,
5enre thar the pIaintiff had been molested
and confirms the statement OF Or; BaflIe
that the uolestations were inJurins her
health.
DID NOT STRIKE HER.
Justice Putnam holds that as Mrs Bro
kaw was in an eXcitabe, nervous condl-
tiou and was under the care Of a nurse
the greater part Of the time, her husbands
~ Great Neck and at Fairview, at the
residence of his sister and at hotels in New
York City and in France were plainly dis
.u-binC and harmful. although not accom-
panied by violence TO her person
Whether or not the defendants acts con-
etituted cruelty in the legal sense Justice
Putnam finds that he had, on grounds that
could not be regarded as serious, left his
wife to the care of others in Paris, and re
raained apart from her on the honeWard
+ri, in sucf 2. manner as TO cause her en-
harrassmeut. Although they were recon
cjlcd after their return to America, the
health Of both was impaired by continued
controversies, according to the opinion.
After Rrokaw went South iD October 1875
he Vas especially insistent that his wife
should have no visitors at the house, en-
gage in no social activities, or even visit
his sisters when they had other guests
Justice Putnam considers this an indica-
zion Of the CONSTANT inquisition and espion-
sge kept up by the defendant
II FIXING THE ALIMONY.
ON the question OF slimony the opinion
runs as follows.
The evidence Of the financial means
and yearly income Of The defendant is not
ciined TO testify to the correctness OF the
statement presented at the CONCLUSION OF
trial. which showed acknowledged oS-
sets of H,e39.939 and gross income or
s7.epo. from which was ESTIMATED net
yearly income of S46, zoo In the defend
ants affidavit upon the motion for allmony
he stated his yearly income was S10,14.
Il aIimony depended on fixed frac.
ton OF income the court would not regard
fhc defendants evidence on the tr1al as
overcoming the Inference OF greater imam
cisi means from the proof by Mr. Arm
strong that far larger amounts than are
now admitted were paid defendant from
his fathers estate prior to May ], 1907
q
NOT based on a definite part of the hus-
hands estate or his yearly income Con
siderinE the situation in life Of the parties
and the circumstances of this separation,
the court fixes the alimony 10 be paid Mrs
Rrokaw by Mr.. Broi1aw s15.o00 a year,
payable in equal monthly instaiments of
N5N
The decree directs that alimony shall
begin from the date OF the entry Of the
decree for the maintenance and support
Of the plaintiff during her natural life.
Such payments are not 30 be in lieu OF
Mrs. Brokaw's right OF dover in her hus-
bands real estate. Mention IS made Of
provision for aecurity for :he payment of
the aIimony but Justice Putnam defers ac-
ton until the settlement OF the decree.
The Brokaws were married near SYRIA
Cuse on September 16. 1867 Mrs. Brokaw
was Mary Morris Blair. daughter of James
A. Blair, a banker. It was intended 10
have the ceremony in Grace Church, New
York but much trouble was experienced
IN getting clergyman 10 officiate, Bro
kaw's first wife, Caroline c. Coudert hav-
ing obtained divorce from him IN 1898
The wedding finally occurred at the Blair
country place.