Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1923-03-15
Denies SIandering Mrs, De-
BouCheI and Says She Was
Responsible for Publicity
Concerning Affair

Asa G. Gamblers answer to the
100000 suit for breach of promise
and SANDER brought against him
February II by Mrs. Onezima De.
Bouchel, Of New Orleans, was filed
Monday in the United States court
for the northern district of Georgia.
Trial of Mrs. DeBouchol's suit
probably will be deferred until some
time in January, 1924, court of:
ficials stated.
With the filing of Mr.. Gamblers
answer Monday the law automatical-
ly places the suit on trial at the
October term, 1928. Because of the
fact that the calendar for that
month is already badly congested it
was considered improbable that it
would come up for trial before jan
uary, with the expressed possibility
that it might be delayed still longer.
In his answer, Mr.. Gambler admits
he corresponded with Mrs. DeBou-
chel and proposed marriage to her
and refused to break the engage
ment at her. suggestion when she
learned from him that members of
his family objected to the marriage.
He admits that q member of his
family went to New Orleans to in
VeStigate letters sent to him from
that city rejecting upon her and
admits he assured her on completion
Of the Investigation that he was
satisfied with the information thus
obtained and wished to go forward
with the marriage.
Admits Breaking TrOth
He admits that plans were def.
nitely made, that the date for the
marriage was fixed, that he ar
ranged with a clergyman to per
form the ceremony, that the honey
moon was mapped out, that she sent
her furniture to Atlanta at his sug
gestion, and that he broke the ell
gagement at the last moment.
He denies, however, that his
breaking of the engagement was
due to members of his family, as
she alleged in her suit, renewing
and desperately rebuilding their
ruthless and determined efforts to
interfere with and prevent" the mar.
rage.
AS to her allegation that his letter
breaking the engagement constitut-
ed a SANDER against her. he denies
that it was, and states that the let
ter contained merely a statement of
the information which had come to
him concerning her conduct in At
lanta during the Confederate re-
union in 1919. He says he communi-
Gated this information to nobody
but her, and says he was satisfied
that the information came to him
through a friendly motive, without
hope of any benefit" on the part
Of the man who conveyed it to him.
AS to the publicity given the
breaking of the engagement, and his
reason therefor, he says he gave
it no publicity at all, and that she
was the one who gave it the pub
licity.
He admits his refusal to give her
the name of his informant, but
denies her claim that mo man of
sufficient character or integrity to
be believed" ever told him that she
invited him fhe unnamed inform
anti to her room at the Piedmont
hotel He says he ascertaiued
definitely that "a gentleman in
Atlanta" actually had made this
statement about her. and in
vestigated no further.
AS to her statement that the
charge against her character is
false and vile" he makes neither
an admission nor a denial, for want
of sufficient infCrmation.'
He denies that she suffered any
damage from the breaking of the
engagement.
His answer concludes with the
usual prayer to the court to be dis
missed.
Answer in Full
The answer follows in full:
In the district court Of the United