Reading v. Gazzam
Decision Date | 17 July 1901 |
Docket Number | 214 |
Citation | 49 A. 889,200 Pa. 70 |
Parties | Reading v. Gazzam, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 15, 1901
Re-argued May 8, 1901
Appeal, No. 214, Jan. T., 1900, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1898, No. 1456, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Elizabeth G. Reading v. Anna Reading Gazzam. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for the alienation of a husband's affections. Before McCARTHY, J.
Plaintiff's statement of claim was as follows:
Anna Reading Gazzam, the defendant above named, has been summoned to answer Elizabeth G. Reading, the plaintiff, in a plea of trespass, in which the plaintiff claims from the defendant the sum of $100,000, the ground of which complaint is as follows:
Whereas the said plaintiff is a good, true, faithful and honest woman, of good name, fame, credit and esteem amongst all her neighbors and others to whom she is known the whole of her life. That she was married January 30, 1872, to R. Charlton Reading. That there was born of the union Adda Sproul Reading, May 10, 1874; R. Charlton Reading, third, born August 13, 1878; and Elizabeth Grier Reading, born April 12 1881, said three children being still living. That the father, R. Charlton Reading, was born June 8, 1845, and until about the year 1890 lived with his family and continued to their support. That about that time, or shortly thereafter he became associated with the said defendant, Anna Reading Gazzam, and began neglecting his family, and that the said Anna Reading Gazzam, the defendant, is a single woman. She the said Anna Reading Gazzam, persuaded him, the said R. Charlton Reading, to stay at various hotels throughout the country with her, commencing in the year 1892. In August, 1893, he visited the White Mountains with the said defendant for a month, and they visited various other places during that year in company with each other. In the latter part of the year 1893, the defendant, Anna Reading Gazzam, sailed for Europe, and upon her return in 1894, was met at the dock in New York by the said R. Charlton Reading, who brought her to Williamsport, Pa., the home of the plaintiff, and stayed there at a hotel for ten days. Before coming to Williamsport the said R. Charlton Reading spent about two weeks with her, the said Anna Reading Gazzam, in the city of New York, after which she came to Williamsport, stopping at a hotel, where the said R. Charlton Reading took his meals with her, had her rooms decorated with flowers, and, at least in one instance, was seen in such a position with her as to warrant the conclusion that improper relations existed between the said R. Charlton Reading and the said defendant, Anna Reading Gazzam.
During the entire year 1895 he was with her almost continuously, neglecting his family, and in June, 1895, spent five days in the house of the defendant at Philadelphia. In July, 1895, they went to Spring Lake, N.J., and attended the governor's ball in company with each other at Sea Girt, and on July 29, 1895, left for Hot Springs, N.C. On September 3, 1895, they returned to Washington, D.C., and on November 5 left for Alexandria Bay, N.Y. On September 13, 1895, left for Montreal, Canada, returning October 16.
They were in constant correspondence by letter when he was not present with her. A sample of the correspondence is quoted in a letter from the defendant to the said R. Charlton Reading, reading as follows:
In the summer of 1896, the said defendant spent in company with the said R. Charlton Reading, the husband of the plaintiff, several weeks at Lake Minnawaska or Lake Mohunk.
On January 12, 1899, the said R. Charlton Reading gave notice by letter to his family that he would no longer support them, and that they would have to take care of themselves.
And the said defendant by her acts aforesaid and by sundry other acts not herein specifically set forth, contrived and wickedly intended to deprive the said plaintiff of the society and affection of her said husband, and also to withdraw from her the support to which she is entitled from her said husband, to hurt her good name, and bring upon herself and her family great scandal and infamy by thoroughly alienating the affections of the plaintiff's husband, depriving her of that support and affection to which she is justly entitled. By reason of which premises the said plaintiff is not only deprived of the comfort and society of her said husband and much hurt and injured in her estate, but is also drawn into such great shame, scandal, and infamy, and remains so much disturbed and disquieted in mind, that she has suffered great and irreparable damage. Thereupon she brings this suit.
In addition to the letters quoted in the opinion of the Supreme Court, and the facts therein stated it appeared that the defendant was the divorced wife of Joseph M. Gazzam, that her maiden name was Reading, and that plaintiff's husband who bore the same family name was a distant cousin.
The court charged in part as follows:
Gentlemen, I will call your attention to some of the testimony that has been offered on behalf of the plaintiff in this case.
In the first place, certain witnesses, Mr. Stephen McCandless and Mr. William Emory, were called in order to show the social position that the plaintiff occupied in the city of Williamsport. Mr. McCandless said that he resides in Pittsburg; that he is a son of the late Judge McCandless, of the United States district court; that he is a member of the Allegheny county bar, and was clerk of the United States district court for many years. He knew Mrs. Reading before she was married and has known her since. He knew her family, knew her father and her mother. Her father was the clerk of the United States circuit court for the western district of Pennsylvania, and her mother was sister of Judge Robert C. Grier, a judge of the supreme court of the United States. Her family held a good social position in Pittsburg, and removed to Williamsport about 1867.
Mr. Emory, who lives in Williamsport, said that he was acquainted with Mrs. Reading; that he has known her twenty-eight or thirty years; and that he knew her before her marriage. He said that he also knows R. Charlton Reading. He has known the family ever since they have lived in Williamsport, and he said that the social position of Mrs. Reading in the city of Williamsport is very good, and unexceptional in its character.
Certain witnesses were called by the plaintiff to show the estate possessed by the defendant. Mr. H. Gordon McCouch, who is the secretary of the Fidelity Insurance, Trust and Safe Deposit Company of this city, said that the company is the administrator de bonis non cum testamento annexo of the will of John G. Reading, the father of Mrs. Gazzam, and that the company holds securities amounting in the aggregate to about $75,000. He said that Mrs. Gazzam has only a life estate in this property, and no power to will it.
Mr. William S. Wallace said that he kept the accounts of the estate of John G. Reading. In June or July, 1892, the executor of the will of Mr. Reading turned over to the Pennsylvania Company for Insurances on Lives and Granting Annuities, of this city, and the Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit and Insurance Company, of this city, in cash and securities, $750,000; $375,000 in each trust, one half in cash and one half in securities. The income of this sum of $750,000, under the will of her father, is paid to Mrs. Gazzam for life.
Mr. Nelson C. Denney, who was employed in the trust department of the Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit and Insurance Company, said that that company is a trustee for Mrs. Gazzam under the will of her father, John G. Reading; that her net yearly income from that particular trust is about $18,000, but that sum does not include the income that may be received by that company from the Fidelity Company.
It was admitted by counsel for the defendant that the income from the Pennsylvania Company, as trustee under the will, amounts to about the same as that which is paid to Mrs. Gazzam by the Philadelphia Company, so that I think it will be proper for you to assume that her income is from $36,000 to $40,000 a year.
Mrs. Gazzam, who was called by the plaintiff as for cross-examination, said that she has a home in Cornwall; that it did not cost $100,000; that it was to have cost $50,000; that she never had the time or strength to look into the bills.
So much for the social position of the plaintiff, and so much for the estate belonging to the defendant.
I will next call your attention to the testimony of the two daughters of the plaintiff, because it may have a very important bearing on this controversy.
Miss Adda Sproul Reading, who is a daughter of the plaintiff and of Robert Charlton Reading, and who lives in Williamsport was twenty-six years old on the 10th of the present May. She has one brother and one sister. The brother is Robert Charlton Reading, who was twenty-one on the 13th day of last August, and her sister, Elizabeth G. Reading, whom you have seen, was nineteen on the 12th day of last April. Her father will be fifty-five years of age on the 8th day of June. He was married on June 30, 1872. In 1891 he commenced to go back and forth to Philadelphia, and told them at times that he was at Mrs. Gazzam's; that he had gone to see her about her divorce. He went back and forth. That...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gazzam v. Reading
...the judgment was affirmed, and remittitur certified to the court below. See full report of the case and opinion by Justice BROWN in 200 Pa. 70. Then followed proceedings resulting in the present appeal. On July 25, 1901, the defendant presented her petition in the court below for a rule to ......