, 1874-07-13
Mrs. Amory Claims q Dover In.
terost in Half-a-Million ~
Property.
The Defense Assert that She Never Waa
Amory's Wife.
And Sllo Charges a Now York
Lawyer with Fraud.
Numerous Regulations Involved.

tile ]aat threo days, presents aomo remarkable
pocu!iaritlcn and complications, and may 10 said
to involve $780, o09 and won,an's character.
I; appears, as alleged III tho bill Of complaint
that III 1889
ANGELINA sTErsoN,
no" Angolina Anory, tic complainant, In Pora-
land, 1lc.. married aatlor named William l..
Williams. In 1871, Williams alippod from
Boston a8 socond 1Iatc on the Louvre, bound
for tho East Indies md back.
a few months after, Mrs. Williams received
lotter from hor husband, stating that bo vas
about to lcayo the ship on which hot then waa
FOR I'll English vessel. Tho Louvre returned in
August, 1s42, with tho report that
w1LL1AMs HAD DESERTED Ills vEssE1
at singaporo, shipped on board IN English
SCHOONER. ind had boon lost in tho China Sen
shortly aftorwarl. Since then tho wife had not
boon ablo to gain any Intelligence Of lor missing
husband, except confirmation Of tho previous
reports.
In 1886, Mrs. Williams moved to New York,
became acquainted with
JAMES AMoRY,
and On tho 18th Of Alarch, 1870, married. him.
sho lived With him, recognized by his family ~
his vito. until 1856 when Hlo separated from
with Mary &. Headdo0, one of tho logatees In
that sho waB tho legal wife of Jau1oB Amor5,
complainant Btatcs that at tho timo Of hor mar
riage there waH ponding in the Supreme Court
OF, Now YORK partition suit between tho
fathor: In this :suit dooroo was On.
tered IN 1851, showing among olher things that
complainant WINS the vito Of james Amory, mud
entitlod to an inchoato right Of dover in ha
acknowledged doeGs with him when sho sold
this property. In 1856, Salle Wilson died,
leaving complainant somo property, and James
Amory then testified, when hor wlll WIS proved,
TINT Angelina was his vito.
ON THE oTHEn HAND.
tn July, 1867, Mrs. Amory commenced suit In
the Superior Court Of New York to rot divorce
yinonlo from her husband on the ground OF
adultery. Tho legality Of her marriage, Of
course, camo up among other questions.
Amory fled 4 oross-bill cLarging complainant
with adultory, and tho cnHo WIS roforred to q
referee. It waB al6o aareoa that II tho referee
should find that tho marriage waa illegal aud
void, and that Amory had prior husband living,
preaunptiyely Of loaat, that tho questions III TO
tho inddolity Of tho parties should uot DO in
Quirod into. Tho reforee found for tho defetd-
ant, md
THE Bu1T WAS D1ssnssED.
Mrs. An1ory olaims that this dooreo was enter
ed through tho fraud and ooltusion OF ler coun.
sol, Chauucey ShaFor. She charges that 4haffer
was in combination With Amory, that le rocoiv.
ed money from him, and that no also allowed
60 by, 1oprchenting moanwhilo to Mrs. Amory
that thero waB no limit 10 the period in which MI
appeal might DO bud. In 1862 an appeal waa
taken: but dismissed on the:above ground; and
| III 1866 O motion to vaoato the decree ard opau
| tho case for new trial WIS alao donied.
| In August, 1865,
| JAMES AMoNy DIED
in Fond du Lac, Wis. leaving about eco, QUO par.
sooal od property 4Sooe n sna in Wissonsi
Of ronl estate in Alla about Now York. Complain
mt charges that tho greater part OF this proper
ty WAS that given to him on tho partition suit oT
and In which she had been daoreod to have an 1ue
choate right Of dover. Amory at his death
LEFT 4 Will
which gavo Mary Z. Heaadon a life eBtnto in
house a1ld lot In Brooklyn, md an annuity Ut
$50D q year. It also gavo Martha A. Deyoo ike
house and lot, and IN annuity Of $3.50, and tho
bulk Of the remainder Of tho ostato waB given to
tAe defendants, his brothors, who were also madt
e1ccntorA.
In 1860 lIry. Amorv, hnving hoard OF the will,
put III an appearance. aud
TooK An ArpEAL
from tho order Of tho County Court previously
znade which admitted tho will TO psobate. She
alleged tint Amory was not at the tmo OF
milking this will. OF sound mind; TINT tho
will was NOT regularly acknowledged, and, lastly,
that the defendants exortod an undue influence
ovor him. The defendants pleaded that slo bad
no intorest III the proceedings. md produced tho
judged her not to bo Tho wife OF Amosy. Tha
Circuit Court ovorruled tho defense, aud an an
poal was taken to tue Supreme Court, where tho
Judgment was reversed, mud tho appeal ordorc1
and Judgment in the action for 4 divorce woro
tnal and conclusive as against tho complainant
in respect to tho interest III tho subject mattos
OF tho appeal,
sl1e lna been deprived OF herrighta in oonteytin8
the will on it's mo,its, and she claims but for thu
interpretation of tliR decree she would hayo bcen
able to prove hor case iu all respects. FL the
fraudulontly rotainod shatfer as her lawyer, 50
that ho should, while ostensibly acting for her,
be really working III his interest. Iu pursuance
OF this tho refornnce WIS had, and Mary Ho|den.
a sister Of complainant, by deception in regard
to tho time lcttor was received. "as induced to
toBtify that complainant had received " lotte1
from hor former husband, Williams, in 1913.
THE LAVE or 31AssAOnusarrs AND NEW YoAK
sny that tho abBenco OF u husband for five ycara
without any intelligence toing received Of him
raisos presumption that ho il dead. Thih wna
QUO OF tho points relied on by Mrs. Amory, and
honco the Importance Of showing that sho had
not received any nova Of hor husband sinca
After tie decree had boon drawn oh.unco,
;:!' s!'1 y'e~ of a's'T; p;seyea;iae nss'Dsy; y;
rehoarlng Of tho case, inserted . clauao in tha
made to opon tic CAUSE for further proof, aud
that it waa deuied and also another oll1lao,
stating TINT the Judgment was enterod in fayof
OF tho defendant on tho 1neritH, when, "a s!&
charges, no such motion Ind been mado, moi
Tas such tLo caso al to the morlts.
THE DECREE so 1NrERLlNED AND AMENDED
was taken to Judge Hoffman, and by him aienodt
on tho representation TINT 1t was all right, mud
was afterwards recorded. As III additional oh.
lection to the validity OF tho docroe il
tho divorce oaso, Alrs. Alnory ci.!mf
that tho Superior Court Of New York, whore tut
case waH triod, Ia court Of limited Jurisdiction
having no Jurisdiction ovor non-rosdents. aud
thnt tho ony deoroo 1t could render, II tor tha
defendant. was simple dismissal OF tho hill,
and, therefore, that tho ayermonts as to tht
meElts, u specifically "a to the legality Of tut
marriage were void.
FINALLY,
Mrs. Amory says she ID deslrous Of 1nstltntna
legal proceedings to recover hor share Of ho1
husbands property. but that tue Aofent'antH.
whom she anea in tlsir private capao!ty, anaelaa
at executors Of tho will OF James Amory, %.
clara that they will oppose her by introducing tu
evldonco tho deorce III the divorce snlty and ths
Judgment IN tho Supreme Court Of Wisconsin!
that they also allogo that ANGRY wac Of sound
mind whon lo nado Ills will. tna that s.N
las no right to any of hia property
EhA therefOro asks III Injunction to