The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-02-06
QUICK VERDICT l. FOR CANDLER IN l. WIDOWS SUIT.
Mrs. De Bouchelle Loses In Effort To Obtain
 Big Heart Balm
JURY SPENT 30 MINUTES
 IN REA, HING DECISION
Aged Millionaire Says He Is Not Surprised-New Orleans
 Beauty Is Silent

r ATLANTA, Ga, Feb. 5.--Within 3C minutes after the case was given the jury verdict denying damages to Mrs. Onezima de Bouchel of New Orleans, in her suit for $500, 900 against Asa c Candler, Sr., of Atlanta, was returned here todax in the United States dis
 rict court. Only one ballot was taken.
 We. the jury, find a verdict for the defendant was the verdict writ ten across the back of the original pc tition. Neither of the principals were in the court room when the verdict was announced. Mrs. De Bouchcl had alleged breach of promise to. marry in bringing her action against the Atlanta millionaire.
 A few minutes following the verdice MT. Candler was found in the lobby of the Candler building, surrounded by friends, who were congratulating him. Il have no statement to make other than I am very happy" he said. T didn't expect anything else.'
 Agree On Date Of Engagement
 Trial of Mrs. Onezima de Bouchel's ' $500, 900 suit against Asa c. Candler, ST., of Atlanta entered dts close today in United States district court with the resumption of arguments by opposing counsel. ,.
 Attorney Harry Gambel of New Or leans resumed his argument for the plaintiff. Mir. Gamble had consumed 25 minutes of the two hours allotted each side before court adjourned yesterday.
 Attorney. Albert HowelB Jr., of At ltnta, for the plaintiff, who is given the privilege of opening and closing alignment by law followed defense at torneys.
 After the routine business incident to the convening of court was concluded began, Judgfe Sibley excused the jury to ascertain from counsel more definite information regarding the date of Mrs. De Bouchels engagement to Mir. Candler. Defense counsel immediately retired with MT. Candler for a con suftation. fi~ #
 Both sides stated in their petitions that the engagement took place in January, 1922. I
 After defense counsel returned and announced that no amendment would be offered the jury was called back and Mir. Gamble continued his speech.
 Mir. Thomson, in opening his argu- ment, asked, "Who is the plaintiff in this case? Is she as described Mrs. Onezima de Douchel or is she Mrs. Adolph Rocquet?"
 Former Husband Tried Consolidation MT. Thompson also read excerpts from lettefs wyifteH5b by Mss De Bouchel tto M andler 5p effurt to shpw fbat Mrs UG Bouc7iei had definitely made up her mind to marry Mfr. Candler be- fore she made any attempt to obtain a divorce. She said her husband had of fered to do anything he could to effect reconciliation, but she refused to con slider it. nsgfsT
 The defense attorney dwelt at length on Mrs. De Bouchel's letters with ref erence to her stay at Reno, pointing out with emphasis, phrases pertaining to the time it would be necessary for her to remain in the, state. The de- fense was passing it's argument entirely on the validity of Mrs. De Bouchel's divorce. @ .tf. . Mir. Thompson concluded his argu- ment with the recitation of pliece of { (CaufnueA Paaa Tvn. cnumn Eivel