Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1923-03-15
GAMBLER ANSWERS SUIT;
ADMITS HIS ENGAGEMENT

States for the northern district of
Georgia northern division.
Onezima DeBouchel VS.. Asa G..
Gambler. No. 619, common law.
Comes now the defendant in the
above stated case. and III answer
thereto, says:
/. Pa graph / is neither admitted
nor denied for want of sufficient in
formation. Defendant says, however,
that petitioner did go from her home
in New Orleans to the state OF
Nevada and instituted there a di-
vorce suit against her former nus
band, but defendant is unable to say
whether she legally became a resi-
dent of the state of Nevada.
2. Defendant admits paragraph z
to q, both inclusive, but defendant
says that when the plaintiff left At
lanta at the close of the reunion,
he made no effort to communicate
with her, nor did he know where
she was until she voluntarily wrote
the defendant two letters, one from
New Orleans and one from FLORIDA.
8. Defendant admits paragraph y,
except the last line thereof, which
for want of sufficient information
this defendant can neither admit
nor, deny.
4. Defendant can neither admit
nor deny paragraph % for want or
sufficient information.
Admits BetrOthaI
5. In answer to paragraph a, de-
PENDANT says that he did become en-
gagged 10 the plaintiff in January,
1922, and Immediately thereafter
plaintiff suggested to defendant that
they go at once and get married,
which, however, defendant declined
to do at that time.
6. Defendant admits severally the
paragraphs 25 to "a, both inclusive.
7. Paragraph So is neither admitted
nor denied for want of sufficient in
formation.
S. In answer to paragraph SO, de-
PENDANT admits that a member OF
his family did visit New Orleans,
such visit having been occasioned
by letters from New Orleans, re-
ceived by defendant and his rela-
tives, suggesting that petitioners
conduct in New Orleans should be
investigated, as defendant is in
formed and believes, the object of
said visit was to Investigate the suS-
gestions made in these letters. These
original letters were turned over to
petitioners attorney shortly there
after, who has never returned them.
8. Paragraph 81 is admitted.
10. Paragraphs SO and 80 are
neither admitted nor denied for want
of inf tinn
II. Paragraphs 40 and So, both In
elusive, are seVerally admitted.
u. Paragraph 50 is denied.
IS. Paragraphs 60 and 81 are ad
mitted.
Misguided, He Says
IA. In answer to paragraph g., de-
PENDANT admits having written a
letter, as stated therein, the exact
language of which letter is not, how
ever, quoted in said paragraph.
Is. In answer to paragraph 63, de-
PENDANT says that in said letters, as
will be shown by reference thereto,
he made no charges whatsoever
against petitioner, but merely stated
to her the information he had re-
ceived.
16. Paragraphs Ga and 65 are
neither admitted nor denied for want
of sufficient information.
II. In answer to paragraph &C,
defendant admits the statement
therein contained in the first three
lines thereof, but can neither admit
nor deny the remainder of said
paragraph for want of sufficient in
formation.
Further answering this paragraph,
this defendant says that when the
statement contained in said letter
was first made to HIM, he was mex
pressibly shocked and confused and
did not know what course to pur-
sue; and that at the time he wrote,
the letter, frankly telling plaintiff of
the statement made to him and of
his confusion and mental distress;
that he did not communicate said
statements to any one except plain
tiff alone, nor would they have be-
come publicly known through him.
Defendant felt that the statements
were made out of d spirit of friend
ship for him and for no benefit or
hope of benefit of any sort to the
man making them, and that having
been made, plaintiff and defendant
could in no event thereafter be hap
PLY married and that he should not,
therefore, involve anyone who had
been actuated by friendship for him