593 Riverside Drive - 29. Chapter 29

Friday May 14, 1925, 10:15 AM

Dr. Menas S. Gregory, a witness called in behalf of the plaintiff, Mrs. Ella Spingarn, being first duly sworn, testified as follows.

Direct examination by Mr. Steuer.

Mr. Steuer: Will you state what your education was preliminary to your becoming a physician?

Dr. Gregory: I graduated from Roberts College in Constantinople with a degree of Bachelor of Arts, and then I graduated from the medical department of the Union University, otherwise known as Albany Medical College in 1898. I had general hospital experience and some general practice for about seven months. Later, I became interested in mental and nervous diseases and was appointed on the staff of Kings Park State Hospital, where I remained for about a year. Since 1905, I have been director of the neurological department at Bellevue Hospital.

When did you first make the acquaintance of Mrs. Spingarn?

On the second day of January, 1925.

Again, without repeating what has already been said, will you tell us what transpired?

Mr. Lewinson: And please recall that the court will regard all testimony as subjective.

Dr. Gregory: Mrs. Spingarn came to my private office, and I observed her attitude and manner. First, her psychological reaction by conversation, the contents of which has been reported before. Next, I asked if she really had any affection for her husband when she married him, inasmuch as he was much older than herself, and she was quite sure and certain that she had and still has great affection for him. In almost every way, he’s the husband she was waiting for. I asked if she would go back to her husband if the present sexual difficulties were resolved, and she said, “Readily.” But she also wished that her husband had been honest about one aspect of their lives together. It appears that before their marriage, he had consulted a specialist – not his long-time family doctor, who he didn’t want to know – and was told, “You are weak sexually. But if you marry again, your sexual power or potency might come back.”

Did Mrs. Spingarn say whether that would have changed her marriage plans?

She said that she would have better known what to expect and would have liked that. But since she has a great deal of affection for the man and his children, she would have continued her plans.

Did anything more transpire?

We went in detail over the question of whether she should go back to her husband, and I told her she should better not do that until she recovered. Since her insomnia might largely be responsible for her headaches and nervousness, as long as it remained, she was still sick and not completely capable of reasoning logically. I said, “The main idea you must have in mind now is you are going to get well.” I also told her not to take any drugs. They were not necessary. She must try to sleep without drugs because in cases like hers, drugs often did more harm than good.

Did she say she was taking any drugs?

She was not – but she had asked if they should be prescribed. I also advised her that instead of thinking about her troubles, it would be better for her to get out of her house and show some interest in other things, and I explained the psychological mechanism underlying that.

Did she have any reaction to that?

She laughed and said that’s exactly what she’d been doing for two years. I laughed and told her she was very wise.

Is that the last time you saw Mrs. Spingarn?

No – we’ve seen each other regularly after that – so far, it’s amounted to six times – whenever she feels it’s needed. And I’ve repeatedly reminded her that once she faced the situation as she should, she would recover, and the nervousness and lack of concentration would disappear.

When was the last time you saw her?

Only last week – on the eighth of this month. She wanted to talk about this coming trial.

And what is your opinion of her present condition?

She’s remarkably recovered and clear thinking, if still not ready to live again as Mr. Spingarn’s wife. But we discussed her living nearby him this summer in Asbury Park, rather than sending their son to camp, which she doesn’t want to do at all.

Did she mention whether that depended on the outcome of this trial?

She said Laurie – their son – came before any difficulties she and Joseph were having.

Overall then, it seems you’ve found a marked improvement in Mrs. Spingarn’s condition, compared to what it was in early January. In light of that improvement, are you inclined to believe that it’s dependent on her continuing to live separate and apart from her husband?

Yes, but please permit me to qualify: This is provided that she and her husband have some sort of understanding for the whole problem – for the complete situation – some sort of satisfactory agreement that would work more or less comfortably for her and also for him. Because there are elements in this question that are outside the domain of medical science. Because the source of irritation would still remain, although she would be away from it.

Can you say with any certainty what the effect would be of her returning to live with her husband?

As his wife?

Yes?

I’m afraid the situation might return to the beginning – though she now has the information she would have liked from the start.

Judge Crain: I’d like to ask the witness a question. [To Dr. Gregory] In the course of your experience, doctor, have you had cases similar to that of the plaintiff’s?

Yes. Not exactly the same, but very similar.

If you feel your medical experience gives you information which would lend value, I would like to hear what you have to say.

If Mrs. Spingarn did not have any love for her husband – if she never had any love for him, and she did not care at all for the members of his family – I would say that it would be impossible for those people to live together again. But from what I have learned from Mrs. Spingarn – and indirectly from others – she really has affection for this man and for his son. In view of those points, I feel she might be able to go back to her husband and live after she has completely recovered.

But not now?

As I’ve already said, that might be detrimental.

And what of the attempted acts of sexual intercourse?

That situation would have to be resolved privately between the husband and wife.

Thank you. I will record what we have said, and we will now pass to something else. [To Mr. Steuer] Mr. Steuer?

Mr. Steuer: That is really all, your Honor.

Cross-examination by Mr. Lewinson.

Mr. Lewinson: Doctor, in any neurological examination where you arrive at a diagnosis, you combine, I take it, both the subjective and the objective in the patient, do you not?

Dr. Gregory: I do.

And the objective would be indicated, among other things, by expression. By color. By movements. By tremors and manners of speech. By hesitation or confusion, if any?

Yes.

And anxiety and certainly depression would discover an expression, I suppose, both in the face and voice?

Yes – and in attitude.

Then do I understand you to say that – even today – the lady is suffering from this anxiety depression complex of psychoneurosis?

I would say that she is not entirely well. But she is much improved.

But she is still suffering from an anxiety depression complex?

I would not call it that. Is what you mean anxiety neurosis?

You have also said depression.

I would allow anxiety neurosis bordering on depression.

Now I would say from my observation of this lady on the witness stand here – and the way she answered questions during the last several days – that she recalled with what seemed to be clarity and rapidity, facts and incidents from over thirty years ago. Did you observe that?

I did.

You did not think that represented either loss of memory or hesitation?

No.

And so far as her physical appearance is concerned, does she not present – objectively – the appearance of one who is well-nourished and well-sustained?

She does.

Did she look as healthy when you first met her in early January as she does now?

Physically, yes.

And have you observed any changes during the arduousness of this case, which has been proceeding since Tuesday? I mean, with your skill and observation, did you observe anything of the kind?

No.

You stated that the lady said that she has not lost her love for her husband – that she really has affection for this man who she married?

Yes.

Of course, she is the best one to know – subjectively.

Admittedly.

You also mentioned something about a discussion between husband and wife – upon a question of compromise.

Yes – she has spoken with me about the difficulties of her present position. She isn’t exactly a married woman, with the hope of having children and living in a normal fashion. But she’s not an unmarried woman and cannot look forward to the prospects of mating with another man.

Did she say that if it weren’t for the complications of the boy, she would seek an annulment?

No, she’s said just that opposite – that besides the sexual difficulties, she was otherwise very happy with her husband.

And when she made these observations of the continual marital complications, did you advise her that she still might consider bringing action for annulment?

I did not.

Now by the last time she saw you – this past week, I believe – she obviously had told you that she’d brought an action for separation?

She said that her lawyer had the matter in hand.

Of course, in all this subjective history, you assume for your diagnosis that what she said in relation to her alleged experience was true.

Yes – but looking upon those statements in the light of my experience.

Judge Crain to Dr. Gregory: Would it have made the slightest difference to you in your conclusion as to Mrs. Spingarn’s nervous condition whether the statements she made to you were true or entirely imaginary?

Dr. Gregory: No – I still would have made the same diagnosis. However, your Honor, I was getting collaboration of what I expected to get in a sickness of this kind by seeing things that I could observe. And that helped me a great deal.

Judge Crain: And there are a great many causes for this type of nervous condition? So the symptoms – as far as she expressed them subjectively – might be associated with a large number of diagnoses?

Dr. Gregory: Yes.

Judge Crain: And you thought that if a compromise was made involving sexual matters – that was satisfactory to both Mr. and Mrs. Spingarn – she would get better?

Dr. Gregory: That would be one way of making her well.

Judge Crain: Thank you. [To Mr. Lewinson] Mr. Lewinson.

Mr. Lewinson. Of course, objectively, the court has no way of determining whether the lady is any more than allegedly sick.

Dr. Gregory: Is that a question?

No. [To Judge Crain] That is all.

--

Dr. David Felberbaum, a witness called in behalf of the plaintiff, Mrs. Ella Spingarn, being first duly sworn, testified as follows.

Direct examination by Mr. Steuer.

Mr. Steuer: Please tell us of your education that preceded your admission to practice as a physician.

Dr. Felberbaum: I studied at the City College until the sophomore year and then entered the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, graduating in 1906. I served four years and eight months at the Montefiore Hospital, then I was a pathologist there for five years, and since then I am an attending physician. I was also instructor in physical diagnosis for almost five years during the war.

Have you practiced privately during any period of time?

I have been practicing continuously since 1909.

How long have you known Mrs. Spingarn?

About eleven years – when I became partner with the Goldberg family doctor shortly before he retired.

Then you knew Mrs. Spingarn prior to the time that she was married?

I did.

And during that time, you had treated her professionally about how many times?

No more than four or five.

And what was her general health?

She was a strong, robust woman.

When – if you recall – did Mrs. Spingarn first mention the subject of her physical condition as associated with her marriage?

On October 27th, 1924.

Did you understand that up to that time she was still living with Mr. Spingarn?

Yes.

Judge Crain: If I may interrupt. When last – before October 27th – had you seen Mrs. Spingarn professionally?

Dr. Felberbaum: In early February, 1923 – when I visited the Spingarn apartment because she and two of her family members – the daughter and the son – were ill with the grippe.

Judge Crain: Then for over a year-and-a-half, you had no occasion to minister professionally or counsel Mrs. Spingarn?

That is correct. Except once, when I had occasion to examine both her and her husband.

Judge Crain to Mr. Steuer: You may proceed.

Mr. Steuer: Can you remember what happened on October 27th of last year?

Dr. Felberbaum: I asked Mrs. Spingarn why she had come to my office, and she told me about her marriage. Then I made a physical examination.

Do you always make inquiry of your patients in relation to their ailments?

It’s part of my procedure.

Now without overly repeating what has already been said, please tell us what Mrs. Spingarn told you that day.

Mr. Lewinson to Judge Crain: I assume that your Honor will take this in the same way that you took the subjective testimony of Dr. Casamajor?

Mr. Steuer to Judge Crain: I am only offering it in that way – not as proof of any fact that Mrs. Spingarn told Dr. Felberbaum.

Judge Crain: Yes – this is simply to inform me of the information the doctor supposed he had and upon which he is about to predicate an opinion.

Dr. Felberbaum Mr. Seuer: As Mrs. Spingarn has testified, she told me of her marriage difficulties.

Mr. Steuer: You say then that you examined her?

Yes.

Judge Crain: Again, if I may interrupt. May I ask if you examined her hymen for the purpose of determining whether or not there had been penetration?

Dr. Felberbaum: Exactly. And I ascertained that it had been partially ruptured with quite a number of remnants remaining.

Judge Crain: And on the occasions that you treated her professionally prior to October 27th – did you attend her for any nervous trouble?

Never.

Judge Crain to Mr. Steuer: That is all I wanted to ask. You may continue.

Mr. Steuer to Dr. Felberbaum: Did you see Mrs. Spingarn after the 27th of October? And if so, can you tell us when?

Between that day and the present, I have seen her almost regularly a total of ten times.

On the 27th of October, did you say anything to her on the subject as to whether she should continue to live with her husband?

I told her that I thought it would be best for her to – even temporarily – separate from her husband for her health.

Was it entirely from the point of view of her health that you made that suggestion?

Yes.

When did you next examine Mrs. Spingarn?

The 31st of October.

And what did you find?

Mrs. Spingarn was very nervous and complained of her inability to sleep and to concentrate.

Did you know that she had followed you advice?

Yes. She told me.

Now earlier – on May 15th, 1924 – Mr. and Mrs. Spingarn consulted you professionally?

Yes – they came together.

And was this the first time the subject of her nervous condition was brought to your attention?

It was never mentioned on that afternoon. The subject of our discussion was Mr. Spingarn’s impotence.

Can you remember specifically what was discussed?

I noted that Mr. Spingarn’s impotence was possibly related to what I thought might be his mild diabetes. I also mentioned that he might be more careful when he considered what he ate, drank, and how often he exercised.

Had this been mentioned to him before?

Not by me. And if by others, he never acknowledged it.

Going back to the October 27th, 1924, did you advise Mrs. Spingarn not to tell her husband that she was going away?

I never said anything of the kind.

Did you tell her to make her leaving permanent enough that it should involve the taking away of her clothes?

We didn’t discuss those details, and I wouldn’t.

Did you suggest that the stay might be a day or two?

I didn’t say how long it would be – there was no way I could know. I simply told her that she should remain away until her health returned.

Did you consider that if the practices which she disclosed to you stopped that the cause of her condition might stop as well?

I didn’t know whether it would or not. I suggested that she try it out and see.

Could she stay away from her husband in the same house?

She might, but it would be difficult, even in a large duplex.

Now for the purpose of forming an opinion as to what her condition was when she called at your office on that day, I take it that you talked with her for quite a while.

Nearly three hours.

And on that occasion was she alone or accompanied by someone – perhaps her sister, Mrs. Hirschler?

She was alone.

Did she seem more comfortable when she left?

She was still nervous.

Mr. Steuer to Judge Crain: Your Honor – that is all.

Judge Crain: Mr. Lewinson?

Cross-examination by Mr. Lewinson.

Mr. Lewinson: Now you know the evil effects of masturbation, do you not?

Dr. Felberbaum: Well, that is an open question. Personally, I don’t believe there is any evil in it.

You don’t concur with Dr. Casamajor that masturbation may be a component-producing cause for psychoneurosis with depression complex?

He said it may or may not be.

Do you agree that it may?

I may or may not.

And if it may, do you agree that it could be a component- producing cause for psychoneurosis?

Not for psychoneurosis. But it may make a person nervous.

Now if this lady did manipulate herself digitally – and also went through a friction-producing process against her husband’s leg – she was going through a process of masturbation, was she not?

She was.

And it has been said that this manipulation created a desire on her part?

The desire may have already been there.

But if she did it after a desire was created, it would be further gratifying that desire, would it not?

That is wrong. She only performed masturbation on herself to relieve the sensations that were produced by the incomplete sexual relations begun by her husband.

Now in point of fact, a hymen is called “partially ruptured” if there is any rupture at all?

Yes, it is.

And when a hymen is entirely ruptured, that is during the process of childbirth?

It may or may not be.

Now if upon the first occasion there was sufficient rigidity of the husband’s organ to penetrate into the person of the woman, and if following upon that penetration, there was sensed on the part of the woman moisture of that liquid type that she could not determine whether it was hers or his, there was an orgasm, was there not?

That is not necessarily so.

But it’s usually the accompaniment of the orgasm, is it not?

Yes.

And if there was an orgasm as the result of penetration of the organ of the man into the woman, that was a normal coitus?

No – it would depend on who had the orgasm.

Would it be true if the woman in concern had an orgasm after the penetration of her person by the organ of the man?

I believe Mrs. Spingarn testified that she did not.

Actually, she didn’t say that. She said there was liquid – hers or her husband’s. So as far as the court is concerned, was this a normal coitus?

Mr. Steuer: I object. That question is based on no hypothesis which enables an answer of that kind.

Judge Crain: I’ll let the question stand.

Mr. Lewison to Dr. Felberbaum: Have you determined in your own mind when this alleged nervousness and psychoneurosis commenced on the part of Mrs. Spingarn?

Dr. Felberbaum: I have not.

And therefore you don’t know if it began a week – or a year – before she saw you?

There is no way I could decide that.

You’re certain?

Yes

Mr. Lewinson to Judge Crain: That is all, your Honor.

Judge Crain to Dr. Felberbaum: About how long were Mr. and Mrs. Spingarn in your presence on the day that they came to your office together?

Dr; Felberbaum: It may have been about three-quarters of an hour.

And were they both in the room during that three-quarters of an hour?

They were.

And was there no time when one or the other of them stepped out for even a moment?

There may have been.

And I suppose in those few moments you had some conversation?

That would be natural.

And was there anything about the way either of them spoke – especially if it was Mrs. Spingarn – or the way she acted – even when her husband was with her – which suggested to your mind as a physician that she was in a nervous condition?

There was absolutely nothing that I could detect.

Thank you. You may step down.

--

Dr. R. H. Goldstein, a witness called in behalf of the plaintiff, Mrs. Ella Spingarn, being first duly sworn, testified as follows.

Direct examination by Mr. Steuer.

Mr. Steuer: Please tell us of your education that preceded your admission to practicing as a doctor.

Dr. Goldstein: I attended Fordham University for my first two years and then Columbia University, School of Medicine. After six months further training at St. Vincent’s Hospital, I moved into my own practice.

Weren’t you rather young?

Perhaps. But I quickly discovered that I was more comfortable working with other people than for them. And I fortunately had the means.

How did you meet Mrs. Spingarn?

It was suggested that as a doctor who knew neither the Spingarn family nor the Goldbergs, I could be impartial to both.

Do you recall who made the suggestion?

Dr. David Felberbaum – the Goldberg family physician.

Could you tell us when you met Mrs. Spingarn?

I’ve examined Mrs. Spingarn on two occasions – once on January 7th of this year, with Dr. Louis Casamajor. Then again on January 15th, with Dr. Charles Nammack.

Could you tell us what, if anything, was determined?

In examining Mrs. Spingarn, we were all impressed with her sincerity and intelligence. She told her story clearly and fairly connectedly, though occasionally there was a trace of tears in her eyes.

I believe that’s the first time this has been mentioned.

Evidently, she disguises her discomfort well. But the neurological examination was entirely negative, and there were no signs that Mrs. Spingarn was suffering from any physical disability. What disability she has is purely of a neurotic nature, and I consider that her mode of life has been responsible for that.

Could you explain?

Well, it’s accepted by many authorities that the principal cause of anxiety neurosis in married women is rooted in difficulties in their sexual lives. The underlying factor is an excitement of sexuality and then a lack of gratification.

Is this rare?

Unfortunately, we see it often – especially in women whose husbands don’t permit them to finish the sexual act – for instance, in those who practice withdrawal. We also see it in women whose husbands are partially impotent.

Is there a typical consequence?

Yes – women who remain with their husbands are apt to have a depression, and this often undermines their health.

And the women who leave?

Eventually, their ill-health passes away. And with the adjustment to a new life, their anxiety tends to disappear.

Would this apply to Mrs. Spingarn?

Yes – I’m convinced that she is unable to live with her husband unless some means is found to give her sexual satisfaction. And I believe she’s too normal to do the former.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean.

Well, if a woman like Mrs. Spingarn chooses to stray from her marriage vows without formally breaking them, the depression seldom appears. But Mrs. Spingarn doesn’t seem to be that kind of person.

Is there any way you can estimate when this depression began?

Not accurately. But from statements made by Mrs. Spingarn, and from my observations of her, I believe that from soon after her marriage, she’s suffered from various nervous symptoms. These border on acute psychoneurosis.

That seems to be the first time “acute” has been mentioned.

Well, presently, Mrs. Spingarn’s condition consists of, first, insomnia – which she attributes to her incomplete sexual relations. Second, there’s her nervousness – which is the outcome of continued insufficient sleep. Finally, there’s distraction – induced by the suppression of her mental, physical, and especially sexual relationships. When she was first examined, I found her to be nearing a state where I advised her to leave New York City immediately and seek peace of mind elsewhere, preferably at a sanitarium. Otherwise, I feared she would never recover.

Isn’t that a very severe diagnosis?

As I said – “acute.”

And could it be that dangerous to her health?

Not only could be, but is.

Still?

Yes.

Thank you. [To Judge Crain] I have no further questions.

Cross-examination by Mr. Lewinson.

Mr. Lewinson: You say you almost immediately advised Mrs. Spingarn to leave the city, yet she has not followed your advice, and she seems to be recovering nicely.

Dr. Goldstein: Unfortunately, she felt unable to leave New York because of her son. But while she’s made partial recovery, she continues to suffer from insomnia and consequent nervousness due to the undecided nature of her life.

Is there any suggestion as to how long this might continue?

As with its arrival, the end of this state of Mrs. Spingarn’s mental instability is impossible to foretell. It may be short or persist for a longer time. It’s also possible that it may suddenly result in a condition even more severe. And that no matter what her protestations, it may require immediate institutional care.

Like Mr. Steuer, I’m surprised by the degree of your diagnosis. I don’t recall that in evidence before.

Perhaps my concern has increased while observing Mrs. Spingarn over the past three days.

Did you gain information that you previously lacked?

Not new information, so much as more of it.

And does your diagnosis – this revised one – entirely depend on the lady’s incomplete marital relations? Is there any thought the cause could instead be her self-manipulation?

In this case, the former is the cause of the latter – and from what I can tell, it always will be. If Mrs. Spingarn’s husband were capable of completing his marital duties, there would be no ill reaction on the part of his wife.

You’re certain of that?

Definitely.

Thank you. [To Judge Crain] That is all.

--

Dr. Charles Edward Nammack, a witness called in behalf of the plaintiff, Mrs. Ella Spingarn, being first duly sworn, testified as followed.

Direct examination by Mr. Steuer.

Mr. Steuer: Please tell us about the education and training that preceded your admission to practice as a physician.

Dr. Nammack: I began my studies at the University of Pennsylvania and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine. For the next eight years, I was associated with the University of Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, and then I was asked to partner in a private practice in Jersey City, where I was raised. I’ve remained there since and am now the senior partner.

Can you tell us when you met Mrs. Spingarn?

Yes – on January 15th of this year, along with Dr. Goldstein. Soon after, I completed an examination of both Mrs. Spingarn and her husband.

Could you share your impressions?

Well, Mr. Spingarn and his family have been my patients for many years – starting when they resided in New Jersey – so this wasn’t an introduction. He’s a well-developed man, frank and straight-forward in his statements, and this continues to be true of his marital difficulties. Still, his physical condition would not warrant the assumption that he’s incapable of cohabitation. His genital organs are well-developed, and they present no evidence of past or present venereal or any other disease. Admittedly, he has a slight tendency towards what we are continuing to learn about diabetes – a condition which he’s exhibited since childhood. But this does not, and has not in the past, incapacitate him in any way for the performance of normal, judicious, moderate, sexual intercourse.

And Mrs. Spingarn?

I found her to be a well-developed, well-nourished woman of robust physique. Like her husband’s, her heart is strong, its actions regular, and it presents no evidence of disease. Breathing through their lungs was also normal throughout their examinations, and mentally, they show good judgment, are shrewd and keen in their explanations, and she, in particular, is clear as to the cause of their marital distress.

Was there any physical evidence to sustain Dr. Felberbaum’s opinion that Mr. Spingarn is impotent?

On the contrary. His wife’s hymen has been ruptured, and her vagina admits three fingers without pain.

Did you find any indication of neurosis?

To call this condition a psychoneurosis on Mrs. Spingarn’s part is mere scientific euphemism for a condition which – unfortunately – not unfrequently occurs amongst married people. But while it may make their family lives unhappy, there is – in my opinion – no reason for it to culminate in separation or divorce.

Then your answer is “No?”

Without question. I wouldn’t term Mrs. Spingarn, in any way, as a neurotic. In fact, I’d consider her an “erotic.” A neurosis is an unpleasant nervous condition of instability. An erotic temperament is one which should be controlled in accordance with the laws of God and man. Whether these differences in temperament between Mr. and Mrs. Spingarn justify their release from the marital bonds which they have both voluntarily assumed is a question that would seem to me for legal adjudication. It is in no way medical.

Thank you. [To Judge Crain] That is all, your Honor.

Judge Crain: Mr. Lewinson.

Mr. Lewinson: I have only one question, and it’s primarily meant to try to determine its root. There has been a suggestion that one solution to Mrs. Spingarn’s marital difficulties is that she – to put it perhaps too colloquially – take a lover. Did that idea possibly originate with you?

Dr. Nammack: Any statement that I advised this woman to take a lover is a damnable lie. It is not my character, education, or training to give immoral advice to any man or woman, and I cannot conceive of anything that occurred during my lengthy questioning of her, and her frank, not to say brutal, replies, that could be twisted into such a statement.

Thank you. That is what I needed to know. [To Judge Crain] I’ve finished, your Honor.

Judge Crain: Mr. Steuer? Have you any further questions for any of these witnesses?

Mr. Steuer: No, your Honor.

Judge Crain: Then we shall recess until 2:00 o’clock this afternoon.