Weekly Delaware State journal, statesman and blue hen's chicken. (Wilmington, Del.) 1855-18??, 1857-08-28
The Cunningham Marriage.


The Surrogate's Decision-She is pronounced not
10 be Dr. Burdeirs Widow.
To half dozen reporters and clerks, aud two
or three lawyers, only one of those engaged in
the cause, Mr.. Chas. Edwards, being present,
the Surrogate announced decision in the case
Of Mrs. Cunningham, adverse to her claim to
letters Of administration as the widow of Dir.
Harvey Burdel The excitement which this
woman has created in the city and country since
the slst of last December was in striking con-
trast with the calm and composed manner in
which the decision upon this important branch
Of the case was made known, the announcement
being made by the Surrogate's reading the fol-
lowing
SURROGATE's C0URT-COUNTY OF NEW-YORK.
In the matter Of Estate Of Harvey Burde deceased
AUGUST a. ls6T-let order be entered, declaring
that the claimant, Rmma Augusta Cunningham, ia not
the widow Of the deceden aud directing letters Of ad
minsraon to be issued to tho decedents next Of kn
giving the proper security. A. W. BRADFORD"
The Surrogate's decision fills sixty-fyc fools
cap pages. After preliminary legal observations
reviewing the testimony in relation to the Her
kimer abb, he arrives at the conclusion thu!
DR.. Burdell was in Herkmer on the 25th, Goth,
and 9th days Of October last, at the time
Augusta Cunningham swears he was in New
York making preparations for the marriage.
He then goes over the evidence of Helen and
Augusta, concluding that Augusta stands con-
tnulcteu IN Hlhny important uctst anu Is III VI
rect collision with the evidence showing that he
was at Herkmer
He concludes, with regard to the testimony
of the Rev. Mr.. Marvin, that it shows some re-
semblnnce between the person married and DR..
Burdell, but no more than might be expected in
an attempt to simulate a marriage and that
there is no recognition or Identification.
He traces the intercourse and intimacy Of
the parties, and shows that they were on good
ntl Tulv 1QhH xVban qariauu liffinulfiaq
arose, and especially that from 23d of October,
the date Of the settlement Of the suit for SLAM
der, down to the time of his death, they con-
tnued upon bad terms that from the terms Of
the settlement and various documents, and there
being no Capitalization, and constantly treating
each other as single; from her signing, en-
dorsing, and executing papers by her own name;
from ailidayits in which she is described by her
own name from the circumstance that she had
lease of the house from his continued efforts
TO compel her to leave the promises up to the
day Of his death from her never asserting
during all these controversies, that she was his
wife, and making that claim for the first time
after he was dead from all these circumstances
he concluded that they were not husband and
wife, and that II was pretended and not a real
marriage.
The Surrogate bases his decision upon the
following points:
It becomes my duty 10 pronounce against the
allegation of marriage The reason leading t.
this conclusion may be summarily stated thus
l. The marriage was olandestine-and thert
is no presumption in favor of secret marriage
neither preceded nor followed by cohabitation.
2. The clergyman selected was unknown I,
the parties
8. The place appointed was distant from tn
decedent's residence.
4. The only witness chosen to be present wa
one Of the daughters Of the claimant.
g. The witness is contradicted by her ow
statements made under oath at different times
and by other evidence.
6. The certificate OF the marriage affords n
evidence of Identification.
Z. The certificate is incorrect as to the nam
Of the decendent, and eyinces Ignorance or ei
ror as to the place of his nativity.
8. There was suspicious circumstances attcnt
ing the transaction.
o. The marriage was not confiled by Ii
claimant to any member of her family, save on
10. There was no private or public a.
acknowledgement, no cohabitation, but the allegt
parties lived as single persons.
IL. On the part Of the claimant there wei
confidential relations with another petson in r
spsct to whom the decedent charged improp
intimacy.