New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-08-08
MRS. f. y. GAMBLER LOSES
Court Decides Wife Is Not En-
titled to a Separation.
abandonment JUSTIFIED
Saws It Is Difficult to Believe She
Loved Husband Between Mar
rage and Separation.

Justice Pendleton denied yesterday the
application of Mrs. Edith Russell Camper
| for "A separation from her husband. Ed
| ward " Gambler cashier OF the Mer-
| chants Exchange National Bank. deciding
| that the abandonment of the wife by the
| husband was iustifiable.
Justice Pendleton said that the testimony
that connected Mrs. Gambler with Harvey
| G. Sickler. president of the Atlantic FER
tilizer and oil Company. subsequent to the
| separation from her husband was uncoh-
tradicted, except by herself, and that even
| on her admissions, her conduct was scarce
" I'm accord with the customary prophecies
| for married woman"
The case. which was tried in June. be-
came one of the most famous OF the matri-
monlal actions heard in the Supreme Court
! for many a dav and brought out a re-
| markable condition OF affairs in the mar
| ried life OF the litigants. Mrs. Gambler, In
trying to show that her husband aban-
| doned her without good cause. and Gam
| bier, in trying TO justify the abandonment
| by showing that Mrs. Gambler treated him
| with undue and unusual coldness. made
| their union known as tho "Nissless mar
| rage" The wife declared that the cold
ness was caused by the conduct OF Gam
bier, who was sparing in his deyotions.
The case was heard before Justice Pendle-
ton without jury.
There is still pending a suit brought by
Gambler for the annulment of the marriage,
which will be tried before jury probably
in the fall
The Gamblers we're married in April
! 1910, and spent their honeymoon in Europe
| They separated about four months after
| their return. II was alleged that Mrs.
Gambler declared that she married so that
she would not have to depend on the sup
! port Of her parents. and also because she
wanted TO live i'm New York. she being a
native Of Georgia. Mrs. Gambler testified,
'IIe treated me as he might have treated
piece OF stone"
After he left his wife. following her al
legged failure to treat him as a wife should
treat her husband, Gambler caused Mrs.
| Gambler to be watched by detectives while
| she lived at the PRINCE George Hotel, and
| also at the Great Northern Hotel. The
testimony Of the detectives brought Mr..
Sickler into the case. A former chauffeur
of Sickler corroborated the story of the de-
|
6estine meetings with Scker, some of
| which we're followed by night rides in Cen
! trail Park. and visited him al his apart
ment. Mrs Gambler contradcted the wit
nesses Of her husband
Justice Pendleton. in his decision, went
into the ground for a separation for aban-
donment. which he said meant unjustifable
| abandonment. But he said the allegation
| that the defendant left the plaintiff was
not sufficient If the alleged deserton was
| caused by the wrongful acts Of the wife.
In such case. the court decided, the de-
sertion was not within the meaning OF the
| law.
| In his action for annulmcnt Gambler has
alleged that the statements Of Mrs. Gam
bier. before the marriage, that she loved
him We're untrue, and that therefore he
| married her under fraudulent inducements.
Mrs. Gambler said that her husband was
sparlng I'm his kisses. bestowing on her in
the first days after the marriage only one
| i'm the morning and one at night Gambler
said that his very presence was distasteful
70 his wife
Justice PendletOn said that II was I'M
necessary in the suit decided 10 consider
n
lie defined the difference between void and
voidab BILE marriages, the former. such as
Gambler alleges. being TO no purpose. That
IS the theory on which Gambler proceeded.
AS to the letter Of Mrs. Gambler, after she
and her husband had parted, saying that
she still loved him and was willing 10 live
with him as his wife. Justice Pendleton
said:
And II a. that very time she vas con-
Quoting herself with another man in the
manner testified 10 by some OF the Wit
nesses, Il can only be received as intended
for the purpose of litigation. Such facts
would tend to throw suspicion on her whole
case and all her protestations OF love for
her husband. H. would be impossible TO
reconcile such conditions with a belief that
she entertained feeling Of love for her
husband or was willing in good faith TO
live with him"
The justice added:
That the defendant loved the plaintiff. de-
sired her az a wife. married her with every
intention and purpose OF dong ms duty oy
with great consideration, kindness and at
tention the evidence abundantly proves 1t
Is possible il he had treated her with less
consideration ana ndu bttn H'I' SVlusH ~
would have been better for her and both
of them: II that plaintiff can scarcely rea-
sonably complain.
As TO the plaintiffs assertion that she
really loved defendant during the period
between the marriage and the separation.
IL is difficult to believe. Beyond her bare
statement Of the fact there Is nothing In
the evidence as 10 the occurrences during
this period 10 show IT, and It is hardly con-
ceivable that she could have treated him
as the evidence indicates she did. II she on
tertained any feeling OF genuine affection.