Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1924-02-03
BOUCHEL DIVORCE
LEGALITY ARGUED
Gamblers Counsel Assert No
DomiciIe in Nevada Has
Been Proved.
By the Associated Press.

By the Associated Press.
ATLANTA, February 1.-The di-
vorce decree which Mrs. Onezima De
Bouchel obtained from Adolph Roc
quet of New Orleans, in Reno, Ne,
September 81, 1921 was attacked and
defended today before Judge Samuel
III. Sibley in the United States Dis
trict Court here in the breach of
promise suit for 100000 brought
against Asa G. Gambler, sr, by the
New Orleans society leader.
w. d. Thomson, counsel for the
Atlanta capitalist, contended that the
decree was invalid and would not
have been recognized either in that
state or in Georgia and that any en-
gagement to marry was illegal and
of no effect. The legality of the di-
yorce was defended by Albert Howell,
of New Orleans, of counsel for Mrs.
De Bouchel. Arguments had not
been concluded when court adjourned
until Monday.
Attacks Nop-Support Plea.
Mr.. Thomson asserted that the New
Orleans woman had not established a
legal residence in Reno and that the
grounds on which she got the divorce
-support-were illegal because
Mrs. De Bouchel had left her hus-
band, Mr.. Rocquet, six months be-
fore she obtained the decree and
travelled in Europe six months pre-
ceding that time.
Mr.. Gamble declared that Mrs. De
Bouchel had established n legal resi-
dence in Reno-bcfore obtaining the
decree and that it was in every
respect in conformity with the Neva-
da laws. Under the constitutional
provision OF full faith and credit"
he argued that the decree should be
recognized in Georgia. He said she
would present witnesses to show that
she planned a divorce before meeting
the Atlanta millionaire.
Says Defense Has Failed.
Attorney Albert Howell Of plain
tiff's counsel, asked Judge Sibley to
incorporate several points in his
charge to the jury. including, he said,
one that the defense had failed to
substantiate, by evidence or stipula-
ton or fact, the basis which Mr..
Gambler gave for breaking his en-
gagement to marry Mrs. De Bouchel
The jury was not present, having
been excused Friday until Monday.
Mr.. Thomson asserted that Mr..
Rocquet, Mrs. de Bouchels husband.
had written her twice during the
twelve months that he wanted her
back and would do anything if she
shall contend that, while he did not
actually support her for twelve
months, the manner in which these
facts were placed before the Nevada
courts constituted fraud
The question at issue in this
action" Mr.. Thomson continued, lis
was Mrs. de Bouchel really married
at the time she became engaged TO
Mr.. Gambler? There is no disputing
the evidence that she was a New
Orleans woman, born and reared in
that city and that she continued to
stay there until December IA, 1920.
Question of DOmicile.
There is no diSputing the evidence
that she married ROcquet in 1902;
and she is his wife to this good day
unless the divorce is valid one.
There is no disputing the evidence
that she went to Nevada on Deem
Der 16, and it must be determined
whether she obtained q change of
domicile. 1t is undisputed that
person may change his domicile mo-
mentarily if the determination to set
tie is set in mind. If Mrs. de Bouchel
did not obtain such domicile the
divorce is illegal.
When court reconveneS Monday
Judge Sibley will hear the final ar
guments upon the validity of Mrs. de
BouchelS divorce decree. After that
the plaintiffs counsel will proceed
with the Introduction of additional
rebuttal testimony, including other
letters written Mrs. de Bouchel by
Mr.. Gambler. The defense has an
nounced that only twenty minutes
will be required for their presenta-
ton of Sur-rebuttal testimony