Notes

Matches 1,351 to 1,400 of 10,076

#	Notes	Linked to
1351	1930 Census says Joseph is 40 y.o. making his birthday probably 1889.	Deutsch, Joseph Leonard (I298)
1352	1930 US Census	Meadows, Claude I. (I3807)
1353	1933 ? 2025 In Lachine on December 22nd 2025, Odette Gagnon passed away. She is survived by her daughter Sylvie (Michel), her cousin Louise, her second cousins Francois D., Sylvie D., Nathalie G., Francois G., Christine R., Michel G., their spouses and children. All her friends from the RSTLYC. All those that helped her live autonomously for so long. Nicole P., Jeannette, Duncan and Monica, Marie-Berthe, Lesley. Ron and Terry, Bob, Marc, Debbie and children, Mona, Lucienne. She was surrounded by so many, we apologize if some were not listed. You are in our hearts nevertheless. RÉSIDENCE FUNÉRAIRE J.J. CARDINAL 2125, rue Notre-Dame, Lachine (Québec) H8S 2G5 Tél. : 514-639-1511 \| Téléc. : 514-639-1516 \| Courriel : info@jjcardinal.ca	Gamache, Marie Lise Odette (I73334286)
1354	1934 5700 Munhall Road #15, PGH 1938 5615 Wilkins Road, PGH 1942 5615 Wilkins Road, PGH 1942 4729 Stanton Court, PGH 1947 5628 Hempstead Street, PGH 1955 5628 HEmpstead Street, PGH 1958 4625 Fifth Avenue #809, PGH 1979 4609 Bayard Street, PGH	Azen, Phillip J. (I110)
1355	1934 6 Virgila Place, PGH	Family: Harry Azen / Fannie D. Hottner (F1007)
1356	1937-2025 Roquemaure: Mrs. Gisèle Gamache, residing in Roquemaure, daughter of the late Antoine Gamache and the late Bertha Lebel, wife of Charles-Aimé Pelletier, died at the Multi-SSS Center in La Sarre on March 12, 2025, at the age of 88. Besides her husband, Mrs. Gamache is survived by her children: Carole (Marcel Turcotte), Claude (Marthe Robineau) and Chantal (Ghislain Lévesque); her 6 grandchildren: Patrick, Jean-François, Benjamin, Gabrielle, Valérie and Jean-Philippe; her 10 great-grandchildren; her brother Fernand and has gone to join his brothers and sisters: the late Claude, the late Marcel (Jeanne-D'Arc Massé), the late Laurent, the late Gaétan and the late Pauline (the late Émile Caron); her nephews and nieces as well as many relatives and friends. The family would like to thank all the staff at the La Sarre Multi-SSS Center for the excellent care provided. Madame Gamache will be exposed at the Coopérative funéraire de l'Abitibi at 200, 3e Rue Est in La Sarre on Wednesday, March 19, 2025, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and on Thursday, March 20, 2025, from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. A ceremony will take place on Thursday, March 20, 2025 at 4 p.m. at the chapel of the Abitibi Funeral Cooperative in La Sarre. The burial will take place at the Roquemaure cemetery at a later date.	Gamache, Marie Ghislaine Gisèle (I26858)
1357	1938-2025 - Died on September 4, 2025, Saint-Pamphile de l'Islet. At the Montmagny Hospital, on September 4, 2025, at the age of 87 years and 7 months, died Mrs. Jeannette Gamache, wife of the late Mr. Lucien Pelletier. Daughter of the late Mrs. Élisa Gagnon and the late Adalbert Gamache, she resided in Saint-Pamphile, county of L'Islet. She is survived by her children: Robin, Gino (Martine Fortin), Renée (Rodrigue Chouinard), Nancy (Serge Ouellet) and Vicky (Benoît Gagné). His grandchildren: Maxime (Ève-Marie Castonguay), Alexandre (Audrey Parent) and the late Guillaume Chouinard, Anthony (Marion Morin) and Gabriel Pelletier (Amélie Coderre), Charles Ouellet (Marie-Pier Charbonneau), Philip (Alexia Larue), Roxanne and François Gagné. His great-grandchildren: Coralie and Adam Chouinard, Rose and Léo Chouinard, Lyana Pelletier and the late Livia Pelletier. She was the sister of: the late Gérard (the late Cécile Chabot), the late Rita (the late Joseph Caron), the late Julien (the late Béatrice Dancause), the late Alphonse, Jean-Paul (Jeanne-Mance Pelletier), the late Benoît (Thérèse Milliard), the late Cécile (the late Éloi Pelletier), Armand (Béatrice Pellerin), Antoine, the late Marcel, the late André (the late Lise Gagnon), Monique (Alyre Pelletier), Noëlla (the late Marc-André Daigle; the late Roch Lévesque), the late Rollande (Joe Heffernan), Fernand (Normande Moreau). Of the Pelletier family, she was the sister-in-law: the late Patrice (Colette Anctil), the late Gaétan (Gemma Gamache), Clémence (the late Maurice Caron), Oliva, Alyre (Monique Gamache), the late Ghislaine, Gaétane (the late Gaston Bédard), André (the late Diane Moreau) and the late Jeanne-Mance (the late Gilles Goddu). Also affected by his departure are several nephews and nieces, cousins, other relatives and friends. Sincere thanks are extended to the healthcare team at Montmagny Hospital for their support and care. Your expressions of sympathy can be expressed by a donation to La Maison d'Hélène 350, avenue St-David, Montmagny (Qc), G5V 4P9 https://www.jedonneenligne.org/maisonhelene/DIMMAISON/ Members of his family will welcome you at the funeral home C. Lavoie & Son (De la Durantaye & Son) 18, du Foyer Sud, Saint-Pamphile Saturday, October 4, 2025 from 11 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. The religious service will be celebrated on Saturday, October 4, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. in the church of Saint-Pamphile followed by the deposition of the ashes at the parish cemetery "Bellevue". For information or to send your messages of condolence: (418) 356-3822, toll free: 1-888-430-3822, fax: (418) 356-5230, email: clavoie@deladurantaye.qc.ca	Gamache, Marie Jeannette (I13057)
1358	194. GAMACHE, ALPHONSIN Sex : F Status : M Date of birth : 28-4-1897 Age : 68 Residence : St-Cyrille Father : GAMACHE, L Mother : , C Spouse : Conjoint(e): BERNIER Date of death : 19-1-1966	Gamache, Marie Alphonsine Clara (I6048)
1359	1940 Census states Roger born in Massachusetts	Gamache, Roger Raymond (I6476)
1360	1944 - lived at 397 St. Joseph Blvd. West Montreal	Family: Morris Goldberg / Edith Rema Klein (F102)
1361	1945-03-03 Chicago Tribune (IL) TRUCK-TRAIN CRASH FATAL. Edition: Chicago Tribune Ottawa, Ill., March 2 [Special]. -- John T. Gamache, 58, of 1919 Congress st., St. Louis was killed today when the semi-truck he was driving was struck by the Rock Island Golden State Limited at an Ottawa grade crossing. Record Number: 19450303ob003	Gamache, John Thomas (I11358)
1362	1947 5535 Beacon Street, PGH 1955 5535 Beacon Street, PGH 1958 5854 Beacon Street, PGH	Family: Harry Azen / Helen Ruth Sohrauer (F66)
1363	1947 - Assistant pastor of St. Joseph's Church, Logansport, IN	Gamache, Reverend François Flavius Ferdinand (I73335644)
1364	195. GAMACHE, ALPHONSIN Sex : F Status : C Date of birth : 8-4-1894 Age : 78 Residence : ST-HYACINTHE Father : , M Mother : CHRETIEN, A Date of death : 21-11-1972	Gamache, Sister Chretien (Marie Alphonsine) S.C. (I73335376)
1365	1953, living on Rural Route in Ripon, WI	Taylor, Nedra C. (I4827)
1366	1955 1958 Berkwood Drive #16, PGH	Family: Howard Morton Azen / Joan Beryl Youngheart (F13)
1367	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Family: Alan Herbert Azen / Living (F34)
1368	1958 5324 Forbes Avenue, PGH	Azen, Alan Herbert (I87)
1369	1958 814 Portland Street, PGH	Family: Max Azen "the peddler" / Eva Brown (F994)
1370	1961-01-24 Chicago Tribune (IL) Gamache Edition: Chicago Tribune Jack F. Gamache son of the late Joseph C. and Rose Gamache brother of Marion and Marcella Gamache and Josephine Arndt; uncle of Mae Joan Combs. Funeral services Wednesday, 9 a.m., at Vero Beach, Fla. Record Number: 19610124dn081	Gamache, John Franklin (I73339014)
1371	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Family: Herbert J. Patterson / Living (F8973)
1372	1974-07-04 Chicago Tribune (IL) GAMACHE Edition: Chicago Tribune Charles Gamache, age 69, of Chicago Ridge, beloved husband of Rose, nee Bragalone; dear son of Ratie and the late Samuel Gamache; fond brother of Thelma (Frank) Welba and Burdette (Jennie) Gamache. Funeral service 9 a.m., Friday, July 5, 1974, from the Schmaedeke Funeral Home, 10701 S. Harlem Av., Worth, to Our Lady of Ridge Church, Chicago Ridge, mass 9:30 a.m. Interment Holy Sepulchre Cemetery. Visitation Thursday, 2-9:30 p.m. 448-6000. Record Number: 19740704dn029	Gamache, Charles E. (I11271)
1373	1978-01-03 Chicago Tribune (IL) GAMACHE Edition: Chicago Tribune Louis Joseph Gamache of Berkeley, beloved husband of Daisy Q., nee Robinson; fond brother of Alice Callento, Jeanette Nasuta, Marion Gemme, Doris Quimet, Paul, Donald, William and the late Fredrick. Retired staff man of Motorola in Franklin Park. Member of Elmhurst Lodge No. 941 A.F. & A.M., Scottish Rite Valley of Chicago and Medinah Temple, Elmhurst Chapter No. 699 Order of the Eastern Star and member of Daylight White Shrine No. 76. Resting at Hennessy-Bruno Funeral Home, 5903 Burr Oak Av., Berkeley, Tuesday from 4 p.m. Services Thursday, 1:30 p.m. Interment Glen Oaks. Masonic services 8 p.m. Wednesday. 544-0100. Record Number: 19780103dn053	Gamache, Louis Antonio Joseph (I73342687)
1374	1979-10-10 Chicago Tribune (IL) GAMACHE Edition: Chicago Tribune Eugene J. Gamache, beloved husband of Alice, nee Kinzie; dear father of Jacqueline (Lawrence) Thise; fond grandfather of Cara and Courtenay; brother of Florence, Thomas and Marie. Funeral Thursday, 9:30 a.m., from Becvar Funeral Directors, 5218 S. Kedzie Av., to SS. Cyril and Methodius Church. Interment Resurrection. Visitation Wednesday 3 to 10 p.m. 776-3809. Record Number: 19791010dn001	Gamache, Eugene Joseph Philippe (I13538)
1375	198. GAMACHE, ALPHONSINE Sex : F Status : C Date of birth : 31-1-1891 Age : 91 Residence : ST-ISIDORE Father : GAMACHE, C Mother : CHAMBERLAND, M Date of death : 12-9-1982	Gamache, Marie Louise Alphonsine (I73335334)
1376	1984-11-06 Chicago Tribune (IL) GAMACHE Edition: Chicago Tribune June R. Gamache, beloved wife of the late Louis A.; dear mother of Barbara (William) McGrath, Kathleen (Donald) Hansen, Louis and Steven; grandmother of five; great-grandmother of five; fond aunt of Marilyn, Jeane and William. Visitation Tuesday 5 to 9 p.m. at Williams-Kampp Funeral Home, 430 E. Roosevelt Rd., Wheaton. Services Wednesday 11 a.m. at the chapel. Interment Forest Home, 668-0016. Record Number: 19841106dn004	Davidson, June R. (I23348)
1377	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Family: Living / Rose Ellen Hepps (F128)
1378	1] Divorce - Decree - Inclusion of Grounds Not Pleaded. Where a wife's evidence in a divorce action overwhelmingly established that her husband had inflicted personal indignities upon her rendering life burdensome, which was the statutory ground alleged in her complaint, it was harmless error for the decree of divorce to include cruelty, which was not alleged in the complaint, in addition to personal indignities as the basis for the divorce, since, under these circumstances, whether the husband's conduct also constituted cruel treatment within the meaning of the divorce statute was immaterial. [2] Same - Fees and Costs - Frivolous Appeal. A wife was allowed $1,000 for attorney fees on appeal, notwithstanding the rule that a wife is not entitled to free litigation at the expense of her husband when she is seeking a divorce, and that the wife in this particular action could have paid her own counsel fees without impoverishing herself, where the husband's unexplained failure to appear personally at the trial of the action was a likely cause of the appeal, and the husband instigated the instant appeal for the apparent purpose of causing the wife expense and delay. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 21230, George H. Freese, J., entered December 4, 1963. Affirmed. Action for divorce. Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Velikanje, Moore & Countryman and Palmer, Willis &McArdle, by Charles C. Countryman, for appellant. J. P. Tonkoff (of Tonkoff, Holst & Hanson), for respondent. Donworth, J. - Appellant husband has appealed from the decree of divorce granted to his wife. His principal contention is that the trial court erred in granting the divorce on a ground not alleged in the complaint, to wit, cruelty, and on the ground alleged in the complaint, to wit, personal indignities rendering life burdensome. The parties were married in 1921 and resided near Yakima. They had no property at the time of their marriage, «*» Reported in 409 P.2d 859. [2] See Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation § 1024. Sept. 1965] GAMACHE v. GAMACHE 823 but at the time of the trial of this divorce action, in 1963, they had acquired community property worth more than half a million dollars. The greater portion of the record relates to the various items of property owned by the parties and the value thereof. However, the portion of trial court's decree which provided for a division of the property between the parties is not involved in this appeal. Appellant did not testify at the trial. He was not present in the courtroom at any time, although respondent's counsel repeatedly demanded that he be produced as a witness. Consequently, the only testimony as to the ground for divorce was that given by respondent. She testified that her husband started drinking to excess about 4 years after their marriage. About 1953, she started a divorce proceeding because of his abusive conduct toward her while he was intoxicated. They were separated for about a year at that time. He told her that he had had a heart attack and she felt sorry for him. He promised that he would never drink or abuse her again, and the parties resumed living together. He stopped drinking for a period of several years, but started again shortly before the present action was instituted in December, 1962. The incident which precipitated their final separation occurred in Bend, Oregon, while the parties were returning from a vacation trip to Reno. They were accompanied by another married couple, although each couple drove in their own car. They stopped at Bend for the night. Respondent testified: Q. What happened? A. He was very belligerent, and he wouldn't come and eat dinner with us at night, or anything, and on the way home he was very sarcastic and we stopped at Bend. Q. At that time were your friends with you? A. No, they had their own car. There was a time that they were with us - that is another incident. We stopped at Bend, and there was something wrong with our car and we brought it to the garage. The next morning he went to the bathroom first and he was to pick up the car, and in the meantime he went and had breakfast and he came back and never told me. We usually stopped at an inn, a lovely place a half a block off the 824 GAMACHE v. GAMACHE [66 Wn. (2d) highway and I wanted to go in there to eat and he didn't want to. He wanted to go in a little dirty pastime restaurant right close by. I said: "If that is the way you feel about it, but it doesn't look appetizing, it is just a half a block, you go there and I will eat here." He got angry and wanted to quarrel on the street. He ran after me and grabbed me with both arms and was pounding me against the building, and I tried to get away from him and he tore my clothes off of me. Mr. Beaulaurier: I object to any physical abuse. It is not alleged in the complaint. The Court: We will let it stand. Let's take the points - these are not contested. Mr. Beaulaurier: Yes, they are. The Court: Just from the standpoint you deny the facts. The only thing taking into consideration his abuse, that she should have more property. Mr. Beaulaurier: The thing I am concerned about is, Your Honor, the complaint sets forth personal indignities as rendering life burdensome, and as the Court is aware under the divorce code itself, the grounds upon which the plaintiff seeks to rely must be set forth in the complaint, and I am concerned for fear that this testimony coming in without an objection on my part could be considered by the Court to establish other and different grounds than those pleaded. The Court: The Court will not consider anything other than considering: did his acts, while living together, influence her health and have an effect on the division of property, if that hadn't happened? Mr. Tonkoff: For the purpose of the record, Your Honor, I think this does show indignities. I don't know how you can be any more abused than a man-handling when on the street. The Court: Let's proceed. Q. What happened? A. There were a lot of people on the street and he didn't even see them. It was like a hideous nightmare. I got away from him and ran in the restaurant and got in a booth, so people could not see the condition of my clothes. He followed me in the restaurant and asked if I had ordered, and he said: "You are not going to eat here either," and he pulled me out of the booth and all the way down the street to the car and then we got in the car and he started to scream and use vile language, and he stopped twice in a wooded area threatening to kill me. Q. Where is the wooded Sept. 1965] GAMACHE v. GAMACHE 825 area? A. Between Bend and Goldendale. Q. Then you got home? A. Then we got home. One of my sons had been using his car and we used my car, and I asked him to bring my car back. I was mortally afraid of him. The boy brought the car and Mrs. Cooper went to Seattle with me and she found an apartment near her daughter in Bellevue, and I stayed there six weeks. I wrote and said I wanted the apartment, I was coming back, and I wanted it. He let me know if anyone had the apartment he was and I was to move out. On cross-examination, she further testified as to the Bend incident: Q. When did you decide with reference to your trip to Bend, Oregon, when did you decide to file a divorce?A. I told him on the way home that I was through and I wanted the apartment and that I was going to apply for a divorce. Q. And it was several days after you got back? A. It was just a day and a half and that is because I didn't have a car. The youngest son had his car because our car was in the garage. In his first assignment of error, appellant challenges the trial court's finding of fact No. 4, which states: That the defendant has by his conduct demonstrated that he has neither love nor affection for the plaintiff, and has on occasions embarrassed, assaulted, and directed profane language toward the plaintiff, and has on various occasions when in an intoxicated condition heaped personal indignities upon plaintiff and has threatened her life so that her life became burdensome in the extreme, and as a consequence thereof the plaintiff and defendant can no longer cohabit as husband and wife. Appellant argues that there is no evidence in the record to show that his conduct had any subjective adverse effect upon respondent. He quotes her testimony (which is set out above) concerning the Bend incident and also with respect to the prior period when appellant was not drinking. He relies on Robuck v. Robuck, 62 Wn.2d 917, 385 P.2d 50 (1963) (and cases cited therein), which correctly states the rule to be that in such cases we must apply a subjective test rather than an objective test. 826 GAMACHE v. GAMACHE [66 Wn. (2d) But in this case the uncontradicted testimony of respondent is that appellant assaulted her on the street in Bend by grabbing her with both arms and pounding her against the building, and when she tried to get away from him he tore her clothes off. She said that it was like a hideous nightmare. She then went into a restaurant and he followed her, pulled her out of the booth and down the street to their car, where he started to scream and use vile language. After they left Bend, he stopped the car twice in a wooded area between Bend and Goldendale and threatened to kill her. After getting home, as soon as she could get her car, respondent and the lady who had been on the Reno trip with them drove to Bellevue, where respondent found an apartment near where her friend's daughter lived, and she stayed there for six weeks. She said that during the few days she was in Yakima after the Reno trip she was mortally afraid of appellant. Appellant did not appear at the trial to deny or explain his conduct as testified by respondent. See footnote 1, infra. In this record there is an abundance of testimony as to the subjective effect of appellant's conduct and words upon respondent. No additional medical or lay testimony is needed. A continuing assault by a husband on a public street and in a restaurant followed later by two threats of homicide in a lonely wooded area can hardly have a soothing effect on a wife. We think that the rule of the Robuck case has been fully complied with. Appellant next argues that respondent's testimony is insufficient to support finding No. 4 (quoted above). He particularly objects to the portion thereof stating that appellant, when in an intoxicated condition, heaped personal indignities upon respondent "so that her life became burdensome in the extreme." Respondent alleged in paragraph 4 of her complaint as follows: That the defendant has not concealed the fact that he has neither love nor affection for the plaintiff and has by various and sundry acts heaped personal indignities upon plaintiff, rendering her life burdensome in the Sept. 1965] GAMACHE v. GAMACHE 827 extreme, so that there now exists a total incompatibility of temperament and that the parties can no longer Cohabit as husband and wife. Appellant denied these allegations in his answer. At the trial, appellant's counsel objected during respondent's testimony regarding her husband's assaulting her on the street in Bend because cruel treatment had not been alleged as a ground for divorce but only personal indignities rendering life burdensome. RCW 26.08.020 (5) includes, in stating grounds for divorce, the following: (5) Cruel treatment of either party by the other, or personal indignities rendering life burdensome. The trial court, in ruling on the objection, said: The Court will not consider anything other than considering: did his acts, while living together, influence her health and have an effect on the division of property, if that hadn't happened? [1] The examination of respondent then proceeded. Appellant's counsel did not claim surprise or ask for a continuance or demand a bill of particulars. We think that respondent's testimony as to her husband's conduct (which he did not controvert or explain by any testimony at the trial) was ample to support the decree of divorce. It overwhelmingly established that appellant inflicted personal indignities upon respondent rendering life burdensome and thus entitled respondent to a divorce on the ground for divorce alleged in the complaint. The fact that the decree also included the ground of cruelty is at most harmless error. Whether appellant's conduct also constituted cruel treatment within the meaning of the above quoted statutory provision is immaterial. There is no merit in appellant's contention that respondent proved only incompatibility, dissatisfaction, and unhappiness in her marriage as reasons for seeking a divorce. He cites Bang v. Bang, 57 Wn.2d 602, 358 P.2d 960 (1961), and cases cited therein, which hold that proof of the existence of these factors are not sufficient to warrant the 828 GAMACHE v. GAMACHE [66 Wn. (2d) granting of a divorce. From our references to respondent's testimony, it is clear that she was mortally afraid of appellant after he had assaulted her in public at Bend and had twice threatened her life on the way home from there. This was no case of mere incompatibility between the parties. It was a case of severe physical public assault by appellant (who is an alcoholic) followed by threats of more violence and death. The cases cited by appellant have not the slightest bearing upon the case at bar. Appellant correctly points out that only the legislature may make incompatibility and similar matters legal cause for divorce, and that it has not done so. However, the facts proved at trial show far more than mere incompatibility. Appellant appears to argue that only if the legislature changed the law would respondent have grounds for divorce. This is patently incorrect. Parenthetically, the practical futility of denying respondent a divorce is demonstrated by the enactment of Laws of 1965, Ex. Ses., ch. 15, which became effective August 6, 1965, and amends RCW 26.08.020 (9) to read as follows: (9) A divorce may be granted to either or both parties in all cases where they have heretofore lived or shall hereafter live separate and apart for a period of two consecutive years or more, without regard to fault in separation. Since the record shows that respondent and appellant have lived separate and apart for over 2 years already, a reversal of the trial court's decree could not terminate the litigation, but would inevitably precipitate another divorce proceeding in which this additional statutory ground could be made a factual issue. We do not intend to intimate that the matter just referred to has been given any weight in arriving at our conclusion about the adequacy of proof of grounds under the present law of divorce, but the effect of the new amendment, referred to above, upon the situation of these parties is obvious. On the basis of the record in this case, we find no merit Sept. 1965] GAMACHE v. GAMACHE 829 in appellant's assignments of error, and the decree of the trial court must be affirmed. In her brief, respondent requests this court to allow her $7,500 additional attorney fees for services rendered in the trial court and on this appeal. Prior to the trial, the sum of $1,000 had been allowed to each counsel and had been paid by respondent out of a $30,000 balance in a fund created and given to her by consent of the parties. Since respondent has not cross-appealed from the provision in the decree which provided that "each party shall pay his own attorneys' fees and costs in this action," this court cannot review the allowance of attorney fees made by the trial court for services rendered therein. [2] With respect to respondent's request for attorney fees to be allowed her in this court, we think that she should be allowed the sum of $1,000. If appellant had appeared and testified at the trial relative to his conduct toward respondent, this appeal might have been unnecessary. In a divorce case involving community property worth more than half a million dollars, he absented himself from the trial and failed to deny or explain his wife's testimony regarding his alleged personal indignities toward her which rendered her life burdensome. No showing was made by affidavit of a physician or otherwise that his health was such as to excuse his absence from the courtroom.«1» We realize that a wife is not entitled to free litigation athe expense of her husband when she is seeking a divorce, if she is financially able to pay the expenses thereof. See Bang v. Bong. 57 Wn.2d 602, 358 P.2d 960 (1961). We are not departing from this rule. However, the property which respondent received in the case at bar was awarded to her «1» When respondent's counsel first requested that appellant be produced as a witness at some time during the trial, the court inquired as to the reason for his absence and his counsel replied: "He is absent this morning because he is not feeling well. He is a man of quite delicate health. . ." Respondent's counsel stated: "his delicate healthwe may go into that. . . There is nothing wrong with his health. He can frequent the bars and get drunk." The court then said: "Let's argue it later. after we get all the facts." 830 GAMACHE v. GAMACHE [66 Wn. (2d) by the trial court with the expectation that she would have to pay therefrom only the attorney fees for services in the trial court (as discussed above). Furthermore, until the decree of the trial court becomes final, she has no property available to her except the money remaining in the fund created by the previous agreement of the parties referred to above. Appellant appears to have prosecuted this appeal with the intention to cause respondent as much expense and delay as possible. We have found his assignments of error to be clearly without merit Appellant husband is the instigator of the litigation in this court. Respondent wife is satisfied with the trial court's decree. Under the circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the wife should not be required to pay any attorney fees on this appeal. Nothing contained in this opinion shall be construed as affecting in any manner any arrangement made or to be made hereafter between respondent and her counsel with respect to compensation for their professional services in this case. Under RCW 26.08.190, the court may, in its discretion allow attorney fees to either party when the complexities and legal problems of the base warrant such award, even though the wife has been awarded a substantial share of the community property in a divorce decree which has not yet become final because of appellant's appeal. See Abel v. Abel, 47 Wn.2d 816, 289 P.2d 724 (1955). We think that this statute also authorizes this court to charge attorney fees against appellant husband under the circumstances of this appeal even though respondent wife could, without impoverishing herself, pay her own counsel fees from resources available to her. Expenses incurred by respondent as the result of appellant's dilatory tactics should be paid for by him. Accordingly, the decree of the trial court is hereby affirmed with directions to enter judgment in favor of respondent for $1,000 additional attorney fees. Respondent will recover her taxable costs in this court. Sept. 1965] CONTINENTAL CAS. CO. v. SEATTLE 831 ROSELLINI, C. J., WEAVER and HAMILTON, JJ., and RYAN, J. Pro Tem., concur. January 4, 1966. Petition for rehearing denied.	Family: William Joseph M. Gamache / Marie Lucille Langevin (F4118)
1379	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Living (I56131)
1380	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Living (I799)
1381	20 Years ago A rural Osceola man, Tim Gamache, 30, was injured when a Bobcat loader tipped over, landing on him and pinning him for four hours until he was discovered Frederic Inter-County Leader May 8, 2013, p b5	Gamache, Timothy Ronald (I73334990)
1382	200. GAMACHE, ALVINE Sex : F Status : M Date of birth : 4-8-1895 Age : 78 Residence : Montréal Father : GAMACHE, D Mother : DUMONT, A Spouse : Conjoint(e): LIZOTTE Date of death : 24-2-1974	Gamache, Marie Albina (I12929)
1383	20002-25 Lionel GAMACHE, 22, miner, Rockland, Cobalt, s/o Ephraim GAMACHE (b. Quebec City) & Louise GUINDEN, married Antoinette LEDUC, 19, Rockland, Cobalt, d/o Antoine LEDUC (b. Bourget Quebec) & Ubelding ROULEAU, witn: Maisie RAWSON of 36 Cobalt St & Evelyn RANIE of 12 Commission Street both of Cobalt on Oct. 17, 1925 at The Manse in Cobalt	Family: Joseph Delphis Lionel Gamache / Antoinette LeDuc (F8861)
1384	201. GAMACHE, AMABLE JOSEPH Sex : M Status : M Date of birth : 19-2-1914 Age : 69 Residence : LEVIS Father : GAMACHE, A Mother : OUELLET, E Spouse : Conjoint(e): DORION Date of death : 27-2-1983	Gamache, Joseph Amable Stanislas (I6230)
1385	2011-10-09 DUQUETTE JOHN ALGER (JAC) Passed September 30, 2011 at age 83 in the company of family. Husband to Sue. Father to Cynthia, Amanda Demitrish (Daniel), Patrice (Steven Graff), and Tamara. Step-father to Glenn Hoffmeyer and Gretchen Hoffmeyer (Mark Roberts). Grandfather to Alissa, Joshua, John Paul, and Amelia. Donations can be made to the Detroit Institute of Arts. From The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press - See more at: http://deathnotices.michigan.com/view-single.php?id=278455#sthash.ZT7Ucf4T.dpuf	Duquette, John Alger (I1803)
1386	202. GAMACHE, AMANDA Sex : F Date of birth : 6-8-1855 Age : 0 Residence : BUCKINGHAM Spouse : Conjoint(e): JONCAS AMANDA Date of death : 1-2-1935	Gamache, Marie Amanda (I36047)
1387	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Living (I15623)
1388	203. GAMACHE, AMANDA Sex : F Date of birth : 3-9-1873 Age : 0 Residence : Ste-Perpétue Spouse : Conjoint(e): VAILLANCOURT Date of death : 20-2-1940	Gamache, Marie Louise Amanda (I4457)
1389	205. GAMACHE, AMANDA Sex : F Date of birth : 16-1-1878 Age : 0 Residence : Montréal Spouse : Conjoint(e): DAUNAIS Date of death : 31-8-1948	Gamache, Marie Sophronie Amanda (I73338560)
1390	206. GAMACHE, AMANDA Sex : F Date of birth : 11-9-1871 Age : 0 Residence : Ste-Louise Spouse : Conjoint(e): JONCAS Date of death : 8-4-1955	Gamache, Marie Amanda (I6022)
1391	207. GAMACHE, AMANDA Sex : F Status : C Date of birth : 27-6-1879 Age : 0 Residence : Montréal Father : , A Mother : KAIGLE, C Date of death : 13-3-1963	Gamache, Amanda (I73334177)
1392	208. GAMACHE, AMEDEE Sex : M Date of birth : 28-3-1870 Age : 0 Residence : St-Modeste Date of death : 24-12-1927	Gamache, Arthur Léonce Edmond Amedée (I12909)
1393	209. GAMACHE, AMEDEE Sex : M Status : V Date of birth : 26-6-1883 Age : 81 Residence : St-Michel Date of death : 24-8-1965	Gamache, Joseph Amedée (I73332946)
1394	210. GAMACHE, AMEDEE Sex : M Status : M Date of birth : 27-4-1896 Age : 72 Residence : St-Michel-Archange Father : , T Mother : STPIERRE, A Date of death : 25-6-1968	Gamache, Amedée Paul (I73332653)
1395	211. GAMACHE, AMEDEE Sex : M Status : M Date of birth : 12-1-1910 Age : 60 Residence : St-Jean-Port-Joli Father : , A Mother : OUELLET, E Date of death : 16-3-1970	Gamache, Joseph Amedée (I73333238)
1396	212. GAMACHE, AMEDEE Sex : M Status : M Date of birth : 30-5-1900 Age : 88 Residence : MONTMAGNY Father : GAMACHE, JOSEPH Mother : DION, A Spouse : Conjoint(e): REGINA Place of death : MONTMAGNY Date of death : 9-5-1989	Gamache, Joseph Amedée (I73332406)
1397	213. GAMACHE, ANATOLE Sex : M Date of birth : 18-3-1878 Age : 0 Residence : L'Islet Date of death : 2-7-1944	Gamache, Joseph Anatole (I5619)
1398	214. GAMACHE, ANATOLE Sex : M Date of birth : 22-7-1904 Age : 0 Residence : Montréal Date of death : 12-8-1962	Gamache, Joseph Anatole (I15820)
1399	215. GAMACHE, ANDRE Sex : M Status : C Date of birth : 12-12-1956 Age : 11 Residence : Ste-Anne-des-Plaines Father : , M Mother : JUNEAU, G Date of death : 27-11-1968	Gamache, André (I41355)
1400	216. GAMACHE, ANDRE Sex : M Status : M Date of birth : 29-8-1916 Age : 52 Residence : GREENFIELD PARK Father : , N Mother : ETHIER, R Date of death : 21-5-1969	Gamache, Joseph André Augustin (I7090)

Maintained by Larry King.