New-York tribune., 1912-03-05
SUES WIFE FOR S6O,0OO'
Physician, Said to "Drink,"
Wants Division of Money.
"lT'S ALL NINE" SHE SAYS
Declares Family Fortune of Some
$40, 900 Was Earned Large
ly by Her Business Foresight.

Since the moving pictures have super
seded the melodrama in the depicting Of
exciting situations and heart throbbing
homlies, that old standby of the 10, 20 and
80 cent theatres. Ten Nights in a Bar
ROOM" has practically been relegated TO
the storage warehouse. SO 1t Is not often
nowadays that one may profit by any such
forceful lecture on the evils Of drink. The
poor. drink soaked father who refused TO
go home when "the clock in the steeple
struck T. stood only the danger OF being
locked out with no place TO sleep. In the
Supreme Court yesterday, before Justice
Brady was a case Of man whose failure
TO hearken to the striking OF the steeple
clock may cost him about $4,000
The plaintiff in the case was Dr. Emory
L. Ernhout, and the defendant was his
wife. Mrs. Mabel +. Ernhout They were
married in 1854, and they lived together
until October 1910. Then they separated.
The separation, it was said was caused, at
least partly. by DR.. Ernhout's Incorporate
habits Now, before the marriage there
was an agreement that the husband and
wife We're TO own Jointly whatever prop
erty came into their possession. Dr. Ern-
hout who had a good practice, Is said TO
have accumulated 100000 and, besides, he
inherited $lS,500 from the estate OF his
father All this he turned over to Mrs,
Ernhout. who was chosen treasurer OF the
family copartnership.
Then came the separation. and DR.. Ern-
hout wanted what he regarded was his
half of the family fortune. But his wife
refused to divide with him This caused
IL. into
court. DR.. Ernhout wanted receiver ap-
pointed TO look after the money. The hus-
band declared his practice is not worth as
much as it used to be, and said he needed
the money for immediate necessities.
When Mrs. Ernhout was on the stand
yesterday counsel for her husband asked
whether she would consent TO give him
enough of the income from the property to
enable him TO get along, provided she was
assured the money would not go to the
saloOnkeepers. Before Mrs. Ernhout could
reply her lawyer interposed an objection.
The case of the husband seemed to be as
much one of sentiment as one OF law, and
Justice Brady did his best to act as medi-
ator. He said;
This has been his one unfortunate habit.
SOIlle UcISOIS Cdll IL a bcON man 'HN''i
but II is a bad fault"
Justice Brady said he believed Mrs. Ern-
hout would give her husband at least
enough out of the $1lS5OO for his necessities.
But Mrs. Ernhout did not consent TO any
thing. She insisted that the money was all
hers. and that she had saved II out of gifts
from her husband. She had the good bust
ness foresight TO invest it in apartment
houses, she said, and was now receiving an
income OF 500 month.
The court asked the lawyers TO hand In
briefs. saying that it was one OF those
cases of which It could only he said too
bad" When they were not on the stand
DR.. Ernhout and Mrs. Ernhout sat next to
each other In the court, and there seemed
10 be no I'll feeling between them. When
they parted at the end OF the trial they
warmly shook hands