Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-12-19

other 20 fuIifl, and the CONSEQUENCE nav ".
misery ard degrada'icn; ard wheress, we BE-
lseve that can live more happily in accord
ance with this agreement made eetween our
7ysr,~y-. ,,,s,,S4 Tbs, ~e. q W woo,,..
Ard Msrha X. wallace. DO agree 20 live TO-
Gether as husband and wifi, and that we will
endeaver 10 do our duty to each other accord
ing TO our views of risht, e-nseisn tiousIy snd
honestly; that we will try 20 keep IN mind the
golden rule of doing as we would be done by.
and in all things endeavor TO promote each
other happiness, so far as we Reasonably ana
consistently can, with the int~ntfcr OF remain
ing together as long as we both shall tive.
But In cass OF anything unfortunately oe-
eurring TO csuse separation between ne. the
com mon properly shall be DIVIDED according
20 he dec.sion OF srbitrators chosen. two by
each ~ Us. ans they choosing the Gtth Who
after hearing fairiy all the eirc ces OF tue
casr. shsl determine on the appointment thar
each shall haye' and Their judgment shall De-
But we both humb,y ana deyout,y prsy our
Heavenly Father 40 avert any such unfortu-
nate SEPARATION; and thar we may live spot
less. pure, and useful lives, and rvincr our
gratitude Cor having been thus brought to-
Sether, ard that our exsmpie may be promo
i've OF the happiness of many others.
Signed w W wcoligY rSeall
MARTHA wALIAC fSeal
This paper was Enclosed in an enyeiors.
should dr. q. W. wooIIey fully agree TO ,h-
viii, sf'er IL Is all settled this Is 10 be handed
20 him unopened. Should he object 20 the viii.
my executor ts 10 open this and ind an sgrae-
mems for more than the will requires.
MARTHA = WooLLEY.
Witness =. HoLLINesHxAD
The petitioner argued that under the Ia ws OF
the state of New York, when the agreement
was msde, the parties were legally married
and she being msrried womsn. had no right
TO bequeath ner properly
The respondent deniss that the parties were
egally married. and stated that al the time the
agreement was made the petitioner had q wtfe
living. This latter statement was rejected be-
cause % WAS not contained m the answer be
further argued that the tesfatrix not having
been legally married, could dispose of her
property she saw mt.
Judge Purcell decided IN favor OF the peti-
toner. setting aside the probate of the wIII,
citing case IN 4th Mumford and HELEN. Su-
preme Court OF Virginia, which neither party
had referred 20 IN their arguments. He held
that as the psrties had lived together rs man
and wife for years. acknowledging eac b other
as such, ana so known IN society. living hap
PLY together; and as the testatrix had signed
the paper purrortine 10 be n will. as MT.
Wooley. thus asserting herself on her dying
bed 10 be the wife OF The petitioner, il " a. not
competent for those ella inning under the Will Is
deny the facts As there was no evidence o.
fered 70 contradict these facts. M would order
that the probate 10 the Will be SET aside and tue
Will Snnulled.
M thompson, Esq, one OF the counsel for
the respondent, asked that the case be re-
opened. or that there be a rehearinr. sta,ipg
that they believed they had new evidence
which would tend 10 show adultery on tne
part OF the petitioner during the alleged mar
rage.
Judge Purcell directed The counsel TO make
and fle sn sffidayIt settIng forth their reasons
Tor thIs motion. and stated that he would con-
sicer the matter AT the next court day.