Arkansas true Democrat., 1857-09-08
The Cunningham Case Decided.


 In the Surrogate'S court of New York, on Saturday before udge Bradford, the court made the following order, founded on written opin- ion: "Let an order be entered declaring that the claimant, Emma Augusta Cunningham, is not the widow of the decedent (Burdell,) and di- recting letters of administration to be issued to the decedents next of kin, on giving the pro- perty security"
 The reasons for this decision are stated sum- marlly thus:
 l. The marriage was clandestine, and there is no presumption in favor of a secret marriage, neither preceded nor followed by cohabitaton.
 2. The clergyman selected was unknown to the partles
 8. The place appointed was distant from the decodents residence.
 4. The only witness chosen to be present was one of the daughters of the claimant. 3. The witness IS contradcted by her own statements made under oath at different times, and by other evidence
 6. The certificate of marriage affords no evil dence of identification. (. The certificate Is incorrect as to the name of the decedent, and evinces ignorance or error as to the place of his nativity
 5. There were suspicious circumstances at. tending the transaction
 J. The marriage not confided by the claimant to any member of her family save one
 10 There was no private or public act of Acknowledgements no cohabitation, but the al- iedsed parties lived as single persons.
 II. On the part of the claimant there were confidential relations with another person, in respect to whom the decedent charged impro- per intimacy.
 # T II alleged to have led to the marriage, are in writ Ing, and exclude the assertion of other terms Is. l he marriage took place after the settle ment had been concluded and carried out
 H. he claimant executed written instru- meuts to the decedcnt in her own name after the marriage. She assigned a judgment, he drew check to the order She endorsed it, and he swore to the affidavit, in all which she was described by her own name.
 10. At the settlement she stipulated for a new lease of the house.
 l6. Shortly before the decedents death she released all causes of action, and abandoned her agreement for lease.
 l1. He spoke of her with contumely and re- proach, and made repeated declarations against marriage.
 IS. lie was determined to compel her to leave the premises, and a new lease to another party was about to be executed
 l9. The marriage was first announced after his death.
 This Is not case where the proofs have left the mind of the court in doubt. Not only are they insufficient to affirm the marriage, but in my view they utterly negative and overturn it. There Is not solitary sign of that relation, but at every point facts stand out wholly incorsist- cnt with matrimonial union from the 23d of October until the decedent was carried to his grave; speech, writing and actions-whch ex- press more chan either-coustantly proclaim that the parties were single.
 The Surrogate concludes his opinion, which is very lengthy thus:
 A series of circumstances, such as in Provi- dence has been developed in this case showing at every step and link connected and harmo- nious chain of evidence against this pretended marriage, cannot be fabricated; it is the result ot natural process; it strikes the mind with irresistible force, and leads to entire satisfaction and conviction, that the decedent was unmar- rled at the time he came to his unhappy death.