The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-11-24
SINGULAR STORIES.
CONCERNING PoLYGAMoUs PRAC-
TICES.

VALUE OF THHCONYEssIoNs OF TBsTAToR
The New York Herald, OF Tuesday, says
that the Singer will case was resumed in the
Surrogate's Court, at White Plains, Win
chester county, Monday. Before the pro-
eeedings commenced Surrogate Coffin an
nounsed that he had received proposition
from counsel for the contestant setting forth
that in view OF the large number OF wit
nesses already subpenaed to testify In De-
half Of his client, he would Ike TO nave
three consecutive days devoted to the
ton be (tbe surrogate) had agreed
to, provided it would be suitable to the
counsel on the other side. Mr.. Carter and
ex-Judge Porter at once concuIred In the
arrangement, and accordingly the case Will
be continued this morning and tomorrow.
Surrogate Coffin then stated that in regard
to the question raised at the last hearing as
TO whether Mrs. Foster, the contestant,
could relate conversations with the deceased,
he was inclined to think that such question
may be asked in case OF probate, that De-
ing serious question, be felt, in the case
under consideration. Mr.. Carter commended
that the statate under which the surrogate
ruled did not apply to case where the
party contesting
CLAIMS TO BE THE WIDOW OF THE TESTAToR.
She first has to show that she was what she
slams to be, and that il is but an attempt to
forge one link in the chain OF proof by
which she car attack the will. The man Is
dead, and the contestant wants the privil-
eye Of testifying to mat ers not susceptible
of contradiction by the defense. Elk Judge
Porter claimed that q similar question had
arisin in the Hardin will case before the
surrogate of New York, who decided to ex-
elude conversations between the al
legged wife and the testator. That
she may prove herself the widow Is
clear, but the question IL, can she
prove it by the confessions of dead man
who can not speak for himself? He held
that the statute says "no claimant against
the executor shall testify in his or her own
behalf" Surrogate Coffin intimsted that
perhaps it would be nice question to de-
eide as to whether the contest was against
the executor or the next OF kin. AT this
stage counsel suspended further remarks, 1t
being tacitly agreed TO by both sides that
that stage had not yet arrived in the pro-
ceediRgs when the question must come up
for final disposal by the court. Mr.. Van
Pelt then announced tina. instead of resum-
ing his direct examination of Mrs. Foster
he would place another witness on the
stand
IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN FACTS
brought out by the contestant at the last
hearing. William J. A. Fuller testified that
ne is an attorney and counselor at law in
the city of New York; Is acquainted with
Mrs. Foster; was engaged by her in a suit
for divorce against Isaac NJ. Singer in 1862;
that he instituted proceedings in the case.
he produced his office register containing
record of the proceedings. Mr.. Carter OBJ
jeoted, and the entries in the register were
excluded, tor while the entry of a summons
and complaint may be shown therefrom,
the fact of their issuance and service could
not be proved by the record produced.
The witness continued Commenced
an action for Mary Ann Singer
for divorce against /. M. Singer;
there was a complaint, now produced, ac
companied by an affidavit OF service. The
admission of the documents merely showing
that a suit had been commenced, was not
opposed. Accordingly number of legal
papers connected with the divorce suit were
handed in numbered and placed on file by
the court stenographer. Witness continued:
There was an appearance in the case; an an
swer was also put in, but 1 believe it was
left with the judge on a motion for alimony;
opposed and afterwsrd decided; have not the
decision alluded TO; there was a decision of
order made; according to my best recollec-
ton there was an Endorsement on
THE PAPERS GRANTING ALIMoNY,
but no order was made; have q paper
showing why no order was made; have pa
pers now with me embodying 'st1pulstions
between counsel" legal controversy
here arose as to the sdmissibility of pa
pers, and when both sides had presented
their views in the premises, Mr.. Van Pelt
said he would next offer in evidence the
Endorsement on the papers in regard to
slimony, before submitting those re-
lating to stipulstions between counsel. The
Endorsement was then read, ordering IS, 900
per annumn alimony pendente life, and $3.50
counsel fees. The proceedings, it appeared,
were had in the Supreme Court, before
Justice Barnard, in May, 1861. Among the
other documents offered and admitted az
part OF the case, was copy OF an agreement
between the contestant and the deceased.
This embraced the securing to Mrs.
Singer (now Foster) a furnished house in
Twenty-eighth street and $50 per week in
stead OF the alimony named above. The
house was to be given the contestant in fee
simple, and the weekly allowance was to-
continue during her lifetime, so long as the
conditions named in the agreement were ad
hered co. This agreement did not deprive
the contestant of the right to prosecute the
divorce suit to q successful issue, and At the
same time left her free and untrsmmeled
as to any matrimonial contract she might
be party to ia the future. Witness re-
sumed: Not long after Mrs. Singer married
Mr.. Foster, and then no further action was
taken in the suit for divorce; the FIRST in
formation of her marriage with Mr.. Foster
had from Mrs. Singer herself; can not say
that first heard OF Il within six weeks after
the signing of the agreement there a receipt
for $500, signed by Abbott & Fuller, and in
favor OF Mrs. Foster, for legal services on
the part of the firm named, was produced
and admitted a. evidence; y there was no
definite arrangement in regard to the
future
PROSECUTION OF THE SUIT FOR DIVORCE;
had conversation In regard to how 1 should
continue the suit; stated to her that had
my doubts of the successful issue of the
reference; that as there hal been hand
some provision made for her she ought to
be content. but she still wished to retain me
In the ease; there were no legal steps taken
in the suit after April, 1852. Here another