The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1875-04-23

81, 800 during his life, or until he. succeed to
e9y portion Of my estate - heir to the issue
The testatrix died in childbirth, leaving
no issue. The validity of the clause was
contested on tho ground Of fraud and un.
due influence exercised over the decedent
by the legatee. It was not contended
that . marriage ceremony had not been
duly performed by competent authority,
but it was said BY the :contestants-the
next of kin Of the decedent- Baker
was not. at that date Of the marriage
ceremony, competent to marry, as he had
= wife living from whom he had not been
legally divorced; that; by specious but
fraudulent representations, he led the de-
cedent to believe that decree Of divorce
which he had obtained in Minnesota from
q former wife was valid decree, and un-
der this belief to consent to q marriage
without the knowledge of her family,
and that it was under the belief that
Baker was her lawful husband that she
made the bequest named-when she
would neither have consented to the mar
r'age nor made him the recipient of her
bounty had she been aware of the real
facts connected with his previous mar.
riage and alleged divorce.
THE FIRST MARRIAGE.
The legatee, John A. Baker, is native
Of North Carolina, and about forty-three
years of age. He was educated a lawyer.
He married many years since lady who
subsequently died, and who left as the
fruit of their marriage daughter. In
1867, while widower, on his way to Eu.
rope, he formed the acquaintance Of Miss
Letitia Hargin, = resident of Chicago.
Each returned to America 1T different
times, and in the fall of the same year,
Baker called upon Miss Hargin. who
was residing with her mother in Chicago,
renewed his Acquaintance and paid atten-
tions to her with view to marriage. He
subsequently left that city, returned
about Christmas, and further pressed his
suit. About this time Miss Hargin in.
formed him Of previous marriage to one
Horton, from whom she had been di:
vorced, and furnished him with informa.
tion to obtain the full facts OF the case if
he desired, or, if the fact of her being q
divorced woman was felt by him to be an
objection to pursuing his attentions fur
ther he might withdraw his suit. lie
wrote her letter replete with assurances
of love an3 affection, and asking her to
accept him in marriage. An engagement
followed, and in Nov ember of 1868, Baker
and Miss Hargin were formally married
in Chicago, and thenceforward for nearly
a year they lived together, except during
his temporary absences; and meantime
he was wholly supported by his wife s
mother, lady in prosperous business.
IN THE DIVORCE BUSINESS.
After one year he abandoned his wife,
writing her a letter from Indiana, in
which he accused her Of gross offences.
Twenty-Five months after this he COM
menced an action for divorce against her
in Minnesota, where he had acquired a
domicile. In the complaint, which was
neither signed nor verified by Baker, but
was signed by his attorneys, it was charg-
ed that his wife had practiced fraud and
deceit upon him at the time of their mar
riage, by concealing from him the fact of
her previous marriage to her first hus-
band, Horton (who it WAS alleged in the
complaint had deserted her), and on the
discovery of which fraud on her part he,
Baker, had abandoned her. Baker also
made affidavit that Letitia was non
resident Of Minnesota, and that he did not
know her residence. The Court granting,
therefore, service Of summons by adver.
tisement, the summons was published in
the Minnesota Temperance Adrocate.
At the trial before referee, two witness.
es testified in . brief and general way to
the facts alleged, and in addition, that
the defendant was q disreputable person,
and in January, 1872, Mr.. Baker was
divorced from his second wife, Letitia.
Within few weeks after this decree
the new widower arrived in New York
city, with letter of introduction to the
family Of Mrs. Lawrence, and there for
the first time he met her daughter, Miss
Susan, and in short time he made her
an offer of marriage. Pressing his suit
strongly, he followed the family to Lenox,
where they passed the summer, and m san
time the two became betrothed. But
stories dcrogatory to Baker were brought
to the family; and when further inquiry
brought to light his recent divorce, their
influence was sufficient to
BREAK THE EN0AGEMENr,
and in September of the same year Baker
returned to Minneapolis, whence, through
the medium of Miss Eliza Brown, his cous-
in, who had come from Minneapolis to
New York for protracted visit, he epen-
ed correspondence with the decedent,re.
newed his suit, and sought to reinstatc
himselfin her favor. To convince her of
the legality Of his divorce and that no le-
gal disability prevented him from again
marrying, he procured the opinion OF
legal counsel in Minnesota that the
proceedings under which he had
obtaineda . divorce from his wife were rego-
lar, and that under the statutes the de.
cree could not be opened. This opinion
and copy Of the Judgment roll were,
through the instrumenta!ity Of Miss
Brown, submitted in November, 1872, to
eminent counsel in this city, who express.
c1 = guarded opinion. on the assumption
Of the correctness Of the facts stated in
the opinion Of tho Minnesota counsel, that
the divorce granted WAS legal. :. 2.
The decedent WAS convinced that no
legal impeachment existed 20 Baker mar.
Iryins; and three days aftsr the date Of
'ths opinioa Of ths NJ Fork so1nssl, she