The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1913-05-31
MRS. BISHOP WINS
ABSOLUTE DIVORCE


lawyers found no basis upon which
they could agree. they reported the fact
to Justice Goff and told him they were
ready 10 report. As soon az he entered
the court room James W. Osborne an
nounced that rhe plaintiff rested. while
MIR. Taft said "Defendant rests"
Justice Gofr then asked IL the attor-
news desired to review the evidence.
and Mr. Taft said he had no wish to do
so. Mr.. osborne said.
we think the court has fun under
standing of the facts in this case
Justice Goff. who had not been in
formed Of the proposal to eliminate Mrs.
Gwathmey's name from the divorce de-
cree. said:
GO1 Names Mrs. Gwathms..
THE evidence Is clear and con> inc
ing that the defendant committed adul-
terry at the Hotel .Astor with Mrs.
Gwathmey on the dates specified. and
Judgment is rendered for the plaintin
accordingly"
Mr.. osborne then announced that the
attorneys had been unable to agree as
10 the alimony and the custody OF the
children and that they were willing to
Taft said there was reasonable pros
pect' that they would reach salts
factory agreement but said that II the
court desired To send the matter to a
referee the attorneys were willing.
II want you to know" said Justice
Con-. that i, is the wish Of the court
that counsel arrange some amlcable
agreement as to the custody Of the chill
dr,r and as to allmony.'
! Mr.. Taft asked that the attorneys
have a brief time IN which to consider
the question and suggested a month.
, MIR. Osborne then said that counsel
would leave the question open until
Monday In an effort to agree before
that time and they will report to Justice
Goff at 1890 o'clock that morning In
the Criminal Branch Of the Supreme
3 Court. II by that time they have not
agreed but see some possibility of
doing So they will ask for more time.
i en3 If not l, is expected they viii ask
1 for n referee to decide the two Ques e
tions.
/ Az soon as Justice Con lef, the court
I oom Mrs. Bishops friends surrounded
/ hor and congratulated her. She made
a triumphal exit as she left the court
I lAtll anu NtnN tp utI dutOIlObllt. ne
defendant appeared relieved and his
sister went to his side at once and
left the building with him.
1t was said yesterday that one Jason
which influenced the defendant to
abandon his case was the feeling of
his counsel that Justice Con was al
ready convinced that the charges OF
misconduct had been amply sustained.
The courts d-meanor during the trial
indicated that the telephone slips SHOW
ing calls from rooms in the Hotel Astor
occupied bv pr and Mrs j. {. Baer,
! Philadelphia Ia Mrs. Gwathmey' =
apartments and to Mr.. Bishops office.
which We're dated both in the morning
and evening, had impressed him. The
court had also observed tha, the maids.
walters and other employees ~ the
Hotel Astor who testified against Mr..
Bishop were positive in their identii-
cation Of both the defendant and CO.
respondent.
IIandw riting Hurt Bishop.
When Mr.. Bishop was called as IA wit ..
ness for his wife at the beginning of
the trial he denied in positive terms
that he had ever spent a night at the
/ Hotel Astor or that he wrote the
names "Dr. and Mrs. j. &. Baer, Phila :
delphia " ON the Astor register. This
| testimony was given when the defend
ant had no knowledge of the quantity
or quality of the evidence against him
1t was learned that perhaps the con-
trolling reason for the abandonment
of the defence was that Mr.. Bishop
could get no handwriting experts who
were willing TO go on the stand and
testify that the signatures of Bishop
and OF "Dr. and Mrs. J. e. Baer, Phila-
delphia" were not the same. The
plaintiffs sole witness on this point
was William j. Kingsley, who said
there We're so many points Of similarity
that he could pick up one writing In
the street and trace 1t to the writer
Of the other. because Bishop In signing
the hotel register had made no attempt
to disguise his hand. At the request
Of Justice Gof the defendant wrote both
names in court.
After Expert Kingsley had testified
counsel for Bishop submitted the two
signatures to Albert =. Osborn and
David n. Carvalho, also handwriting
experts. They reported there was no
doubt that the handwriting was the
same In each. and that they would not
care to testify under oath to anything
else. The plaintiff then sought to call
these experts as witnesses. but they
declined because they had been re-
tained by the defence.
From the time the divorce suit was
begun Bishop has insisted that the
charges against him were the product
of his wife's imagination. and he sub.
mitted affidavits by aliartsts concern
ing her alleged mental condition. A
statement that Mrs. Bishop was no,
Of sound mind was made by George
Gordon Battle, Mrs. Gwathmey's attor-
ney. in letter to District Attorne,
Whitman. and resulted In suit fol
$4,000 damages for libel by MRS
Bishop. In the course OF the con.
ferences yesterday Mr.. Battle insisted
that II the defence was abandoned tn,
, libel suit against him should he with
drlWn and II ia cXneCte1 that thio x,,ii