The New York herald., 1921-04-23
STOKES CHARGES
FALSE, SAYS WIFE
Gives Dates and Incidents
to Show Allegations of
Misconduct Baseless.
HIS ACTIONS ATTACKED
She Declares Husband Kept
as Many as 40 Chickens
in Apartment.
MENTAL CRUELTY CITED
Witness Asserts He Told Of
His Associations With
Other Women.
HIS ACTIONS ATTACKED
MENTAL CRUELTY CITED

Mrs. Helen Elwood Stokes appeared
on the witness stand yesterday before
Justice Finch in the Supreme Court
for the first time in the trial OF the
suit for divorce filed against her by
w. e. d. Stokes and made sweeping
denial Of every charge brought against
her by her husband. declaring that
every assertion that she had been in
innate with Edgar T. Wallace, DR.. Hal
Billig and George Schroter was abso-
lutely false and without foundation.
Mrs. Stokes told also for the first time
yesterday the story of the miniature
poultry farm which she declares her
husband kept in their apartment In
the Hotel Ansonia, at Broadway and
Seventy-fourth street.
HE kept so many chickens in the
apartment" she said, that 1t was un-
fit to live In. l had to go out some
times to the home of my friends to
get my meals.
How many chickens did Mr.. Stokes
keep in his apartment at the Ansonia?"
asked her attorney. Martin w. Littleton.
"At one time he had as many as forty
five" replied Mrs. Stokes.
'tHe had six boxes of little chickens
brought In and began to raise them in
our apartment. Some of them died and
altogether the place was very unpleas-
ant to live in
Testiaes to Mental Cruelty.
Mr. Littleton endeavored to draw from
Mrs. Stokes testimony upholding her
countercharges of cruelty against Mr..
Stokes. She testified that the cruelty
he inflicted upon her was mental cruelty
and consisted principally in telling her
of his associations with other women
and even OF bringing them to their
apartment and forcing her to see them.
Ibid your husband admit that he
had had improper relations with women
who came to the hotel?" Mr.. Littleton
asked.
Objection was made by Mr.. Stokess
attorney, Herbert c. Smyth. but Justice
Finch ruled that Mrs. Stokes might
answere the question, as 1t came within
the range of the allegations of mental
cruelty. Before she did So however.
adjournment for lunch was taken and
the question was not brought up again
when court reconvened. Previously,
however. Mrs. Stokes had said this:
II had to endure the presence OF
strange women in our apartment \
didn't like such women and objected to
kim bringing them to the apartment.
For awhile he had an office on the same
floor and 1t was even after his office
was moved away that these women came
to our apartment"
Under the questions asked her by Mr..
Littleton during the direct examination
Mrs Stokes took up in detail all OF the
charges made against her OF intimacy
with Wallace, DIR. Billig and Schroter
and gave her reasons TO prove that she
could not have been with them at the
time her husband charges. Usually she
gave dates and cited incidents to prove
that she was somewhere else with en-
tirely different persons.
Chauffeur Contradfcted.
Mrs Stokes was particularly emphatic
in denying the testimony of a chauffeur
named Kubick. who had told of driving
Mrs. Stokes and Schroter and another
man and woman to Castles by the Sea
at Long Branch. The chauffeur at first
fixed the date of this party as June.
1917 but later said 1t might have been
1916
I'm May and June. 1917. I was in
Denver In June. 1916, ! underwent an
operation In Cincinnati made necessary
by the birth of my daughter. Muriel. on
December %. 1915. Mr.. Stokes was at
the hospital at the time. After the op-
Grafton We went to his Patchen-Wilses
farm. near Lexington, KY. so l could
not Rave been at Castles by the Sea In
May or June. 1916. either
So far as Wallace was concerned.
Mrs Stokes testified that she had seen
him only few times in parties, and
that she never saw him at all from the
time he asked her to return a ring he
had lent her In 1909 until he appeared
on the witness stand few weeks ago.
She said also that she had never seen
or. met Mrs. Mabel Matteossian or Mrs.
Marie DE Anquinas. who had testified
that they saw her with Wallace at Long
Beach in an automobile before dis-
reputable hotel and in Wallace's apart
ment In 13 East Thirty-fifth street.
Il was never at 10 East Thirty-fifth
street In my life" she said.
Mrs. Stokes also branded as false
every bit of testimony given by SER
wants and other witnesses for Mr..
Stokes regarding alleged intimacies
with Schroter and DR.. Billig.
Mr.. Littleton started n considerable
argument between counsel when he
asked Mrs. Stokes why she went to Dem
yer In 1917.
WAS IL to get divorce?" he asked
NO" replied Mrs. Stokes. Il went to
give Mr.. Stokes an opportunity to decide
between his first wife and me. and he
was to let me know"
objection Finally Sustained.
Mr.. Smyth objected on the ground
that the answer intimated friendly rela-
tions between Mr.. Stokes and his first
wife. who Is now Mrs. Philip Lydig. and
Justice Finch ordered the answer
stricken from the record. Mr.. Littleton
however. submitted selections from let
ters between Mr.. Stokes and Mrs Emma
Miller, Mrs. Stokes's mother, which the
plaintiff introduced in evidence Thurs
day and which also referred to Mrs
Lydg. Justice Finch then reconsidered
and allowed the answer TO stand, but Il
was again stricken out when Mr.. Smyth
raised the point that the phrase "oppor-
tunity TO decide" showed the opera ton
OF the plaintiffs mind.
The story of the Stokes butler and
chauffeur concerning her alleged in
timacy with George A. Schroter was de-
MED In toto by Mrs. Stokes. She said
sAat Schroter had been at the Stokes
rome at Long Branch but once. and that
he had been accompanied by Mr.. Stokes
and DR. and Mrs. Hendricks She de-
MED emphatically that Schroter had
ever kissed her; that he had ever called
her on the telephone that he had ever