Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1924-01-31
PLAINTIFF welded
At TIME Of TROTH,
CLAIM Of GAMBLER
Jury in Breach Suit Select
ed-Both Principals Barred
by Law rom Appearing as
Witnesses

Indicating the line of defense in
the 100000 suit filed against Asa
G. Gambler, Sr., of Atlanta, by Mrs.
Onezima DeBouchel, of New Or
| leans, for alleged breach of promise,
attorneys for Mr.. Gambler filed be-
| fore United States Judge Samuel H.
Sibley Wednesday noon an amend
ment to the original answer, assert
ing that at the time of Mr.. Gamblers
engagement to marry the New Or
leans woman, she was legally mar
ried to Adolph Rocquet, of New Or.
leans.
The jury was chosen in less than
five minutes, as follows:
Alex II. Price, q merchant, Locust
Grove, Ga.
C. Ward Rosenberg, 108 Orme Cir
cle Atlanta
Will Mauldin, of Bolton, Ga.
James II. Ziegler, SO Adair ave-
nue., Atlanta.
James w. Seize, 115 Peachtree
place, connected with the state de-
partment of agriculture.
Jack J. Sullivan, real estate, re-
siding at the kimball House.
Lyle d. Burns, 81 Druid place,
Atlanta.
Lou P. Taylor, sc Boulevard Ter
race.
Charles B. Everett, travelling
salesman, of $50 Metropolitan ave-
nue..
John Morris, Jr, member of the
firm of Keely company, and vice
president of the Atlanta Retail Mer-
chants association, of 1541 z CHI
tree road.
Samuel T. Maddox, insurance. OF
SCI Ponce Gle Leon avenue.
William r. Prescott, insurance, OF
Z Clifton road.
The amendment to the defend
ants petition asserted that Mrs.
DeBouchel could not contract a
valid marriage" because she was
legally married to Mr.. RocQuet. This
ceremony, it was stated in the
amendment, was performed at Pop
larville, Miss, on September 8, 1902.
Principals Not to Testify
Another sensation was sprung at
the opening of the trial in the dis
closure that neither Mrs. DeBouchel
nor Mr.. Gambler may take the stand
in their own behalf, under a pro-
vision Of the Georgia law governing
the trial of breach of promise cases.
The state law applies to such cases
tried in United States courts, it was
declared by lawyers and court room
officials.
The provision barring both plain
tiff and defendant from the witness
stand is specifically incorporated in
the lawyers. Attorney Albert How
ell, chief counsel for Mrs DeBou-
chel, announced that. no effort
would be made to place his client on
the stand.
Mr.. Gambler had not put in his APP
pearance in the courtroom when the
case was called, but he walked into
the court chamber shortly after
o'clock, as the plaintiffs counsel be-
gan the introduction of letters writ
ten to Mrs. DeBOuChel by Mr.. Cand-
Ter early in 1922. The courtroom was
crowded, with about half the audi
ence women.
Due to other court proceedings,
which took precedent, the trial of
the suit was delayed until nearly
noon, when three jury panels were
organized and the jury quickly Sc
lected
Jury Hears Plaintiffs Claim
The first legal move after the
jury was selected was the admission
of the amendment to tho defendants
answer offered by Mr.. Gamblers
lawyers.
Attorney Albert Howell then out
lined to the jury the claims made
by Mrs. DeBouchel in her petition
beginning from the TIME she first
met Mr., Gambler at the Confederate
Veterans reunion in Atlanta in 1920
until the time their enga cement was
broken in September, 1922.
I'VE expect to show YOU" Attor-
ney Howell said, that Mrs. De
Bouchel first met Mr.. Gambler a.
the reunion and was later a guest
at an entertainment given by him
in honor of several of the visiting
ladies, including herself; that this
acquaintance resulted in cor
respondence between them, which
grew gradually to the point where
they had reciprocal affections, final
ly reaching an agreement of mar
riage
I'VE expect to show you that i'm
mediately after the engag cement was
made, members of Mr.. Gamblers
family manifested objections to the
match. whereupon Mr.. Gambler
called the situation to her attention
and she broke the enga cement.
I'VE expect to show YOU that Mr..
Candle then advised Mrs. De
Bouchel that he would be left ut
utterly alone in the world if she
persisted in her refusal TO marry
him, protesting that he needed her
care and companionship during his
declining years, and assuring her
that when she became his wife his
family would abandon their objec-
tons and welcome her as his wife.
We expect to show YOU that on this
representation by the defendant the
plaintiff consented 70 enter into the
engagement anew, but that immedi-
ately thereafter. his family re-
doubled their efforts TO prevent their
maria &c
Wedding Tour Arranged
I'VE expect to show YOU that Sep
Continued on Page 5, Column y