Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1949-10-13

sisters was married; the parties
hereto attended said marriage and
took two friends with them;
throughout the trip defendant
continuously ridiculed and derided
Baddeck, plaintiffs family and
friends; that this became the sub
ject of common gossip and so en-
barrassed plaintiff that no return
was made to Baddeck until 1881.
10. In the summer of 1929
plaintiff and defendant went TO
Europe again; plaintiffs expenses
were paid by his aforesaid employer
and defendants expenses were paid
by plaintiff; this was an assign
ment for plaintiff, yet defendant
made every effort Throughout the
summer to hamper, harrass and
deride all efforts of plaintiff TO
carry out his editorial assignment;
said assignment was for plaintiff to
take photographs on a pre-ar-
ranged itinerary; while in Europe
during that summer several friends
accompanied plaintiff and defen-
dant good part of the way !;
throughout this trip in the presence
of the said friends defendant took
particular pleasure in deriding
plaintiffs attempts to perform his
employment; that despite this,
plaintiff did succeed in bringing
back punishable material, although
defendants chief interest appeared
to be in the expenditure of plain
tiff's money for entertainment,
souvenirs and clothing; that as
result of this constant pickering
plaintiff was forced to take sick
leave from his employment shortly
after his return from Europe; that
during plaintiffs convalescence he
took defendant on three weeks
trip to Bermuda
IL. During the summers of
1881, 1882 and 1888 plaintiff and
defendant spent their vacations
in Nova Scotia in their own cot
tage, with a cook and a nurse to
take care of their children even
though this was in the depth of
the depression; during said sum-
mer vacations defendant continu-
ously found fault with everything
relative to the way of life of the
parties hereto, although every
thing was done for her.
IL. In the summer of 1884 plain
tiff and defendant again went to
Europe, plaintiff on assignment,
but taking defendant with him
and paying her expenses; that due
to defendants extreme unpleas-
antness during this trip plaintiff
took no photographs, but, never
theless, he did gather sufficient
material for an article which was
published in August, 1886, but
which necesitated another photo
,grapher going to Europe to take
pictures for said article.
Is. On 1885 plaintiff purchased
a Gibson Island, Maryland, prop
erty which thereafter became de-
PENDANTS summer home from June
through September; at all times,
excepting the war years, plaintiff
employed servants to assist de-
PENDANT in caring for said property
and their three children.
IA. In the summer of 1887 plain
tiff and defendant again went to
Europe, the former on assignment
but paying the latter's expenses
out of his own funds; they motored
through the loveliest parts of
Italy, Austria, Czecho-Slovakia
and Germany, but Notwithstanding
this, plaintiff because of defendants
continual harrassment, did not un-
dertake photographs or articles
until he reached Dresden, Germany,
at which point defendant left him
and went on to Berlin, while he
spent ten days taking photographs
and writing notes for an article;
it appeared that no matter what
plaintiff did on this trip he could
in no way satisfy defendant; he
always gave her all the money,
freedom of action, etc., that one
could ask for, and yet defendant
seemed to take pleasure in attempt
ing to force plaintiff away from
his assignments and the pursuits
of his chosen career.
Is. In the summer of 1888
plaintiff gave defendant a trip to
Europe alone in the hope that such
trip abroad by herself might in
some way bring about reconcile
alton of their differences; but upon
her return from Europe on this
trip when plaintiff met defendant
in New York City she treated him
as stranger.
16. In 1889 plaintiff again al
lowed defendant to go abroad, this
time accompanied by their daugh-
ter; when defendant returned
things were as before, even though
plaintiff had paid all expenses
and granted her every request,
it was as though plaintiff was a
stranger to defendant.
II. Defendant, in private and
in public, continuously derided,
belittled and in all other manner
expressed contempt, dislike and
adherence of plaintiff and his work |
u. L 4 e