The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-12-22

| out Minister. l
Yesterday Judge Purcell gave bis deci-
sion In the case Of DR.. G.. w. Woolley against
Henry Whitall. The petitioner asked the
court to set aside the will of the late Mar
tina II. Woolley. He set forth that he was
married to the tcstatrix October IL, 1862 /;
that the will was made October 81, 1866 /;
In which she bcqueathcs her property to
her sister, Hattie A. Ruberdale, and nomi-
mates Henry Whitall rs executor. He
asks IL be set aside, because she had no
separate estate, and was not competent to
make the will.
Mr., Whitall answers that the facts in the
petitjon are true, but denies that Mrs.
Woolley was legally married, or that she
was not qualified to make the will.
The case was argued before the court on
Saturday last by F. Schmidt, Esq, for the
petitioner, and X. p. Jackson, Esq, for the
respondent. A number of witnesses were
examined, and the following paper was
produced by one of them, but was not re-
ccved as evidence, both parties Directing
BROOKLYN, October IL, ls62.-In the
name OF God, amenl In accordance with
Divine Law, in obedience TO the dictates
of conscience, in conformity with our
tastes, sympathies, instincts, and inclina-
| tons, the undersigned do deliberately,
cheerfully, and with full purpose of heart,
enter into the following obligations, and
adopt these preamble, resolutions, and
agreement:
| Whereas it is not good for man to be
alone, and that when properly mated man
and woman can be mutual helps to each
| other in sickness and health, and can con
| tribute much to each others enjoyment !;
and whereas there are in our minds serious
objections to the usual forms and ceremo-
MES Of marriage as performed by clergy
men and other legally appointed officers,
| binding persons under the. most solemn
! pledges 10 live together, and to love each
other while life shall last, without any pro-
| viSo or reserve whatever; which solemn
pledge 1t may be impossible for one or the
other TO fulfil, and the consequence may
be misery and degradation; and whereas we
| believe that We can live more happily in &C
cOrdancc with TINS agreement made be-
tween ourselves therefore
ReS0lred, That we, g. W. Woolley and
Martha K. Wallace, do agree to live together
as husband and wife, and that we will en-
deavor to do our duty to each other accord
ing to our views of right, ConScientiouSly
aud honestly; that we will try TO keep in
mind the golden rule of doing as we would
he done by, and in all things cndeavor to
promote each others happiness, so far as
we reasonably and consistently can, with
the intention OF remaining together as long
as we both shall live.
But in case Of anything unfortunately
occurring TO cause q separation between
us, the common property shall he divided
according 10 the decision of arbitratOrS
=, chosen, two by each of us, and they choos-
ing tho fifth, who, after hearing fairly all
the circumstances Of the case, shall de-
tcrminc on the appointment that each
shall have; and their judgment shall be
final.
But we both humbly and dcvOutly pray
our Heavenly Father to avert any such un-
fortunate separation: and that we may
live spotlcSs, pure, and useful lives, and
cvincc our gratitude for having been thus
brought together, aud that our example
may be promotyc of the happiness OF many
others.
[Signedl ". W. WooLLEY, [Seal.l
MARTHA r. WALLACE, lScal.l
This paper was enclosed in an envelope,
endorsed:
Should DR.. G. ". Wolley fully agree to
the will, after it is all settled, this is to be
handed to him unopened. Should he OBJ
ject to the will, my executor is to open this
and find an agreement for more than the
| VIII requires.
MARTHA r. x WoOLLEY.
Witness: j. s. HoRingshead.
! Thcpetitjoner argued that under the laws
Of the State of New York, when the
agreement was made, the parties We're
! legally married, aud she being married
woman, had no right to beQueath her pro-
pcrty.
The respondent denied that the parties
were legally married, and stated that at
/ the time the agreement was made the
petitioner had wife living. This latter
| statement was rejected because it was not
contained in the answer. He further ar
gued that the teStatrix, not having been le-
galy married, could dispose of her pro-
perty as she saw fit.
Judge Purcell decided in favor Of the
petitioner, setting aside the probate of the
/ will, citing a case in 4th Mumford and
! HELEN, Supreme Court of Virginia, which
neither party had referred to in their ar
gumentS. He held that as the parties had
| lived together as man and wife for years,
acknowledging each other as such, and 50
known in society, living happily together
and as the testatrix had signed the paper
purporting tos be will as Mrs. Wdollcy,
| thus asserting herself on her dying bed to
! be the wife of the petitioner, it was not
competent for those claiming under the
will TO deny the facts. AS there was no
evidence offered to contradict these facts,
he would order that the probate TO the will
! be set aside and the will annulled.
| NJ. Thompson, Esq, one Of the counsel
! for the respondent, asked that the case be
re0pened, or that there be rehearing,
stating that they believed they had new
evidence which would tend to show adul-
terry on the part of the petitioner during
the alleged marriage.
Judge Purcell directed the counsel to
make and file an affidavit setting forth
their reasons for this motion, and stated
/ that he would consider the matter at the
next court day Washington Star.
! TERRIToRALIZING.-Th Washington cor