New-York tribune., 1911-01-17
.LAUTERBACH DIVORCE ON
Action Revealed in Naming Ref
cree to Take Testimony.
LEGAL FIGHT OVER MONEY
Lawyer and His Wife Have Been
Separated for Three
Years.

IcdIS 5.
a new step was recorded yesterday in
tire marital infelicities Of Mrs. Amanda r.
Lauterhach and Edward Lauterbach. the
we'll known lawyer. when Justice Page. in
the Supreme Court. appointed ex-Judge
Edward $. Clinch as referee to hear the
testimony in a suit for divorce which Mrs
Lauterbach brought against her husband.
This action Of the court was the first inti-
ration that the suit had been begun. and
NJr Lauterbach was unwilling 10 say that
there was such an action against him, de-
claring that the reference had TO do with
another action between himself and his
wife which had already been in court sew
eral times
The alleged correspondent in the complaint
of the wife was not mentioned by name.
Mr. and Mrs Lauterhach have been living
apart for three years. and last May the
wife brought suit for a separation based
principally on the ground of abandonment.
which however she did not prosecute very
actively. This move was the elimination OF
2 series of court fights over a fund of $3.50
600 which Mr.. Lauterbach set aside for his
three daughters, Mrs Edith McDavitt. Mrs.
terbach.
The daughters sided with their father in
the litigation. and in fact were the plain
tiffs in the suit brought 10 compel Mrs.
Lauterhach 70 render an accounting Of her
trusteeship of the fund. Mrs. Lauterbach
contended that the fund all belonged to
her.
Mr. and Mrs. Lauterbach had been living
inn u.ha tho action Of
the daughters came into court. on their
petition Justice O'Gorman appointed the
Farmers Loan and Trust Company receiver
Of the fund and restrained Mrs Lauter-
bach from disposing Of any part Of the
trust estate pending the determination Of
the daughters suit for an accounting. The
Appellate Division OF the Supreme Court
later upheld the order Of Justice OGor-
man.
The daughters said their mother had In
her possession 81, 900 Of the trust fund which
was Mr.. L.auterbachs share from the pro-
ceeds Of the sale Of property al sixth ave-
nue. and 25th street. left by his parents.
About $4,000 more OF the fund was from
the sale Of a house at No. 2 East 'Hth
street. which Mr.. Lauterbach built. The
deed Of the property was In the name or
Mrs. Lauterbach, but the daughters SAID
she only held the property for their heneht.
They said further that Of the money in
the possession Of Mrs. Lauterbach only
S32nN0 belonged 10 her. OF this amount
10000 came 10 her from her son. Alfred
I.auterbach, who was killed in an automo-
bile accident. and 5000 from her father
Mrs Lauterbach said she had mortgaged
the house in 18th street and had given her
husband the proceeds. which lie used for
sreculative purposes and in large enter
rrises. She said that 5000 she saved and
gave him went the same way. and that
sne gave her husband $500 with which TO
nav his insurance and $3.50 with which TO
pay his debts
Mrs Lauterhach insisted that the action
Of her daughters against her was inspired
hy her husband. and that they did not
bring it Willingly.
Counsel for Mr Lauterba,h in the suit
told Of the lawyer giving his wife much
valuable jewelry, and said she had lived
extravagantly. paying $3.50 for her apart
ment ana $500 a year for a box at the
opera.
Mrs. Lauterbach said she paid only $3.50
4 year for her apartment. and as for her
opera box she said Il guess / can nave
box at the opera if l want IT,
Counsel for the husband also said Mrs.
Iauterbach's statements showed want OF
balance, inordinate selfshness and an eH-
aggerated ego.
Mr Lauterbach charged that his wife had
been addicted TO the use Of drugs.
In May. 1893. Nj. Lauterhach advertised
that he would not he responsible for the
debts of his wife.
A reconciliation was looked for when
they met at the funeral Of their son. but II
Gid not take place.
There was another difference Of opinion
between the wife and husband when Mr..
Lauterbach applied TO Surrogate Thomas
to sue the New York Central & Hudson
River Railroad Company for the death OF
his son. which resulted from running his
automobile over railroad bridge
Mrs LauterbaCh, as Administrative Of
her sons estate, refused to sue and op-
posed the efforts Of her husband to bring
suit.
He said that he purposed giving the pro-
ceeds Of the action to his daughters.
Following their separation Mrs. Lauter-
bach made a statement. in which she said:
"Mr Lauteroach left our home, in the
Hotel Savoy, a month ago, in a very sum-
mary manner. He accused me Of bounding
A person who. had learned, had deepened
the break that had occurred between Mr.
Lauterbach and me. and with a suggestion
tina; his departure would be final he went
cut Since that time he has not been to