Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-03-11
A CURIOUS AFFAIR.
lifted Lover An search of His Pro
Perty-A Phase of Chicago life.

Perty-A Phase of Chicago Life.
A curious illustration of the man
ner in which marriages are some
times contracted, and the prelimi
nary steps attending prospective
proceedings in that direction, wat
afforded in a bill filed on the 20
inst. in the Circuit Court, at Chica
ego, by Abraham ]. Rockafellow
against Mary A. ii. Newcomb, te
compel the reconveyance of GUAM
: tity ofreal estate at Hyde Park, on
the corner of Fifty seventh street
and Madison avenue. The bill al,
leges that Miss Newcomb is a sister
OF compliments first wife, now de-
ceased, and that she has departed
from an agrc ement by which she
pledged herself to succeed to the
position of her departed sister; in
short, that she had Tilted her
brother -in-law.
The complainant explains the
manner in which all this came
about by stating that on Septem-
Der q, 1868, he was the owner of
the property in question; that he
was then unmarried, but was en-
gagged TO be married to the defend
ant, whom he charges with having,
by the aid of that engagement and
by means Of fraudulent representa-
tiOns, induced him to convey the
property TO her. She is alleged TO
have said TO him that the convey
ance wouldn't make any difference !;
they were about to be married any
how, ana she had no in yention of
recording the deed, which might
be destroyed after marriage. More
over, she owned certain lands in
Iowa, which her friends were try
ing to get away from her, and
which she wanted to convey to
him, in order that she might put q
quietns upon their opportunities by
telling them that she no longer
owned the land. She only wanted
a deed of the Hyde Park property
as pledge Of confidence on his part
and security on hers-a sort Of
mutual expression Of love for and
faith in each other.
Complainant alleges that he obs
Jected to conveying to her the
property, but she urged it strongly
as an expression Of confidence,
clinching the argument by the sig
nificant remark that if he had no
confidence in her it was time mat
rers were broken Off between them.
According to the bill, Mr.. r. did
have confidence in her, and, rather
than evince any want of it, gave
her the deed. Contrary to the ex-
pressed agreement, the bill further
alleges, she did record the deed on
the 18th Of October, 1868. He did
not learn Of the fact then, nor un-
til November !, 1868, the day on
which the marriage was appointed
to take place. He called at her
residence on that day to claim his
bride, but found that she had alb
sented herself, pleading sickness,
and he saw no more of her until
March 3, 1869, when he discovered
that she had abandoned all ideas of
marrying him, dating her change
Of purpose back to October l, 1868,
twenty-eight days before the deed
was recorded. He then applied for
reconveyance, having learned that
the Iowa lands were worth about
$500, while his (or her?) property
was worth over $1,000. Since that
time she has avoided him, and be
has not seen her.
The bill further narrates that de-
PENDANT was a sister Of complain
ants first wife, and he supposed
her to be his friend, and she had
been much in his family, and he
had supplied her with pecuniary
aid, by which she was enabled to
get an education, and had bought
for herself and widowed mother a
home at Galesburg He charges
that she agreed to marry him,
knowing him to be worth property,
with intent TO defraud him thereof,
and that she did cheat and defraud
him; wherefore the present suit to
recover.