Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1923-03-13
GAMBLERS ANSWER
ADMITS BETROTHAL!
To MRS. DEBOUCHEI
New Orleans FianCee Want
ed to Wed Immediately,
Which, He Declined to Do,
Atlanta Capitalist States

Asa G. Gamblers answer to the
$500, 900 suit for breach of promise
and SANDER brought against him
February II by Mrs. Onezima De-
BoucheI, of New Orleans, was filed
Monday in the United States court
for the northern district of Georgia.
In his answer, Mr.. Gambler admits
he correspondent 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 a member of his
family went to New Orleans to in1
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.
lie denies, however, that his
breaking of the engagement was
due to members of his family, as
she alleged in her suit, renewing
and desperately redoubling 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 SANDER against her, he denies
that it was, and states that the let
ter contained merely 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 commune
Gated this information to nobody
but her, and says he was satisfied
that the information came to him
| through 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 the unnamed inform
anti to her room at the Piedmont
| hotel He says he ascertained
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 1nfOrmation.'
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 i'm Full
The answer follows in full:
In the district court Of the United
| 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:
l. Pa graph / is neither admitted
nor denied for want of sufficient in
formation. Defendant says, however,
! that petitioner did go from her nome
| in New Orleans to the state OF
| Nevada and instituted there a d.
vorce suit against her former hus-
| band, but defendant is unable to say
| whether she legally became a resi-.
| dent of the state Of Nevada.
2. Defendant admits paragraph z
ia p, both inclusive, but defendant
says that when the plaintiff left At
Ianta 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,
pxcept 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 23 for want of
sufficient information.
Admits BetrOthal
s. In answer to paragraph "a, de-
PENDANT says that he did become en-
gagged 20 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 % to "a, both inclusive.
7. Paragraph So is neither admitted
nor denied for want Of sufficient irt
formation.
S. In answer to paragraph So. de-
PENDANT admits that member of
his family did visit New Orleans,
such visit having been occasioned
bv letters from New Orleans, re-
ceived by defendant and his reIa-
tives, suggesting that petitioners
conduct in New Orleans should be
as defendant is in
formed and believes, the object of
said visit was to investigate the sug-
gestions made in these letters. These
original letters We're turned over to
petitioners attorney shortly there
after, who has never returned them.
9. Paragraph 81 is admitted
10. Paragraphs SO and 80 are