Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1922-11-25
CAIyDLER ENTERS
DENIAL. III Answer
To BYF|ELD SUIT


cations in the 100000 damage suit
insti .uted gainst him " Mrs. Clyde
K. Byfiek was made Wednesday
l. a special demurrer and answer
filed in DeKalb superior court by
Walter T. Gambler, through his at
torneys, Reuben and Lowry Ar
nc.
TIL answer to the Byfield suit
concludes with a sweeping denial
that Mr.. Gambler has committed
any wrong against the person of
Lrs. Byfield or that he is liable to
her for any damages what@oever,
for the alleged attack on the steam
ship Berar geria last July.
The Byfield suit was instituted
last August. following a suit insti-
tuted by Mr.. Gambler in Fulton ST.
perior court against CLYDE K. By
field, charging blackmail. Mr..
Gambler asserted that blackmail was
used to coerce from him a S22,500
note, which was given Mr.. By
fl Id in Paris and on which he asked
the court to stop payment. This
suit IS still pending, but has been
taken off the regular calendar.
Indicates No Settlement
The filing OF the special demurrer
and answer bears out the statement
of attorneys and interested parties.
who have several times declared
Their, has been no settlement of the
Byf. cid Gambler damage suit, de-
spite persistent rumors which have
been af' "a. for many weeks, hint
ing at a settlement of the litigation.
In his answer Mr.. Gambler denies
that he persuaded Mr.. and Mrs. By
field to accompany himself and his
two little girls on the European
trip, declaring that $50 far as he
knows, the plaintiff and her hus-
band were as anxious to make the
trip as this defendant was "
Using the formal legal rhraseoi-
ogy-"Paragraph 9 is denied'-MT.
Gamblers answer denied the para
graph in the Byfield suit referring
to the famous champagne party on
the Berangeria, in which it was stat
ed that nobody became intoxicated
and all left the dinner in full pos
session of their faculties"
Mr.. Gamblers Contention
In his suit against Mr.. Byfield,
Mr.. Gambler asserted that champagne
was served freely at the last-night
dinner, and that as a consequence,
he was no3 entirely cogniZant OF
what he was doing after he left the
dinner, and therefore, stumbled into
Mrs. Byfields stateroom by mis-.
take.
He also denied the following para
graph, which declared there was
no intoXication among the members
of the Gambler party, and that pc
titioner, her husband, and said
Gambler were in full possession of
their faculties"
Continuing, Mr.. Gambler denied
the allegations of Mrs. Byfield that
he attacked her in her stateroom;
responsible for the fact that the
plaintiffs nerves were wrecked or
that she was sick and remained in
bed"
Denies Responsibility
The answer declares that If she
was, in fact, in such a condition, las
to which this defendant has no
knowledge, this defendant was not
responsible in any way therefor"
He further denies that Mrs. By
field underwent an operation as the
result of any attack on his part, or
that she has suffered any humilia-
ton as the aftermath of his miscon-
duct.
Referring to the surgical opera.
ton mentioned in the ByFeld peti
ton, Mr.. Gamblers answer asserts
that such an allegation sis vague
and indefinite, and fails to state
what the nature of the surgical op-
Grafton was, and what the trouble
was that the operation was perform
ed to correct"