Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1924-02-05
DIRECTED VERDICT
IS DENIED GAMBLER:
JURY To GET CASE
More Correspondence IS
Read as Sides Conclude
! "RebuttaI Testimony-FinaI
Arguments Under Way

A motion that Judge Samuel H.
Sibley direct a verdict in favor of
the defendant, was overruled in
United States district court Monday
afternoon at the trial of the 100000
suit instituted against Asa G.. Can
dlcr, Sr., by Mrs. Onezima De
Bouchel, of New Orleans.
Judge Sibley held that whether
Mrs. DeBouchel went to Reno, New,
for the sole purpose of obtaining a
divorce, as is alleged by counsel for
Mr.. Gambler, constituted Il question
for the jury to decide. If she went
to Nevada with that view, even
though she was physically present
for the required six months, he said,
the divorce would be void in Nevada
and, therefore, could not be recog-
nized IN Georgia.
Immediately after Judge Sibley
rendered his decision on this notion
final arguments in the case were
begun by opposing counsel, with At
torney Harry Gamble, of New Or
leans, as the first speaker for the
plaintiff. Each side Ill be allotted
two hours. and the case is expected
to reach the jury some time Tues
day.
Jury Sent Out
The Jury was sent out OF the cham
Der while Attorney Marion Smith ar.
gued the motion in behalf of Mr..
Gambler. He set up that the plain
tiff had not presented sufficient evil
dence to allow a recovery of any
damages, and further asserted that
Mrs. DeBouchel was legally mar
ried at the time she became en-
gagged to marry Mr.. Gambler, and
that, therefore any engagement was
invalid ard could not be enforced.
Judges Ruling
"a decree of DIVORCE" said Judge
Sihley in his ruling, that is void in
the state where granted is void IN
other states and not entitled to rec
ognition. The state where the couple
resided at the time of separation Is
the matrimonial domicile, and that
state has full jurisdiction. Where
both parties leave the state the mat
rimcylial domieile vanshes and goes
with neither spouse.
wv here only one party leaves the
state, that state has jurisdiction over
the martial rights of the one remain
Ing and the power to grant divorce.
~ state where an applicant for
divorce is II mere sojourner and the
other party is not present has no
jurisdiction in the matter of divorce
and divorce granted by it is VOID
II think that the question of this
PLAINTIFFS intention liz going to Ne
vada constitutes d question for the
jury, and I therefore will have to
overrule the motion fol directed
verdict"
Opening at o'clock before Judge
Samuel II. Sibey, the first hour oil
Mondays session was devoted tt
further debate upon the validity oil
Mrs. DeBouchel's divorce decree
which has been attacked by defense
con sell Attorney Albert Howell
Jr.. was the only speaker.
Several additional letters writer
BY Mr. Gambler to Mrs. DeBouche
were then read, and Colonel Louis
r. Bryan, Mrs. Lydia c.. Wicklifft
and Mrs. M. Z. McNeely, New Or
I hans friends of the plaintiff, tool
good character
Both Principals Present
The debate upon the validity of the
divorce decree was begun Saturday
as a collateral feature of the case
They were made nthe absence OF
the Jury, as any other disputed lega
point of a trial is discussed. The
1urymen were not allowed to enter
the courtroom Monday until Attor
ney Howell had finished speaking.
Both principals were present tol
the fifth days session. Mr.. Gambler
arrived while Mr.. Howell was speak
ing, and Mrs. DeBouchel, accompa
MED by the same group which ha
attended her on previous days, pu
in her appearance shortly after /
o'clock.
Claims Residence Legal
Attorney Howell in his speed
raised the question of Mr.. Gambler
right to invoke the public policy o
! Georgia in his efforts to defend him
send against the result of a breac
of contract.
He rev. -,vd the question o
whether Mr.. Rocquet, Mrs. De
Bouchel's divorced husband, wa
served with notice OF divorce actor
and declared it was agrede in stipu
lation between counsel that such ha
been the case. He then reviewe
the contentious of the defense i
the legal issue being argued and dc
clared that the plaintiffs positio
was that Mrs. DeBouchel had bee
and was a legal resident OF Nevad
both in fact and intent.