The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-03-30
Marriage or NO Marriage.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE WILLIAM q. GEORGE CAsE-THE
CHANCERY COURT IN ERROR IN EXCLUDING
TESTIMONY As TO THE CHARACTER OF ALDER
MAN MINK-NEW TRIAL GRANTED.
In the Supreme Court OF Appeals yester-
day, in the case Of George and others against
Pitcher and others, an appeal from the
Chaucery Court Of Richmond, the opinion
Of the Court was delivered by Judge Bllrks.
William o. George, o well-known citizen
Of Richmond, died in August, 1869, intes-
tate, and, as was then supposed, without
ever having been married. In that event,
DR.. Miles George, haR-brother, and some
-nephews and nieces Of the hali-bIood, being
his next of kin, would have been his heirs
and distributes, and thus entitled to his
estate. which was estimated to be worth
probably $4,000.
1t seems that years ago William o. George
owned a'negro slave called Caroline Jack
SOD, BY whom he had three children. One
OF them died in early life., The other two,
a boy and girl, he removed together with
their mother to the city Of Philadelphia
about the year 1854 or 1856, where they
have resided ever since. He provided for
them quite Literally, maintained and sup
ported them as long as he lived, educated
the children, and conveyed house and lot
Of considerable value to the woman i'll the
wear 1860. He kept mp regular corre-
spondence with them till his death, and
visited them several times each year. Very
soon after his death the woman and her
children set up claim to the whole OF his
estate, based upon an alleged marriage be-
tween William o. George and the woman
in Philadelphia about four months before
the death OF George, by which they claimed
that according to the laws of ennsylvania,
where the marriage Is said to have been So
lemnized, the children were legitimatcd,
and they and their mother became entitled
to his estate in Virginia.
A chancery suit was brought IN Rich
mond to settle the rights OF the rival claim
ants to the estate OF William o. George, in
which an issue was ordered and tried by a
Jury, presenting the single question whether
the alleged marriagefcver took place or not.
The jury found, by their verdict, that no
such marriage was ever solemniZed as
claimed. The decree OF Chancellor Fitz-
hugh, based on that verdict, was the occa-
sion of the appeal decided by the Court Of
Appeals yesterday.
Several questions Of interest were de-
cided by the Court. The Philadelphia
claimants had filed petition IN the court
below for the removal Of the case into the
Circuit Court of the United States, on the
ground that they were non-residents, and,
by reason of prejudice and local influence.
they could not get justice in the State
court. The Chancellor refused to order
the removal, and the Court OF Appeals sus-
tained him to that extent. The statutes on
the subject OF removal OF causes from State
courts into the Federal courts, and the jul
dcial decisions touching that question,
were considered and discussed at some
length in the opinion OF the Court.
The main question, however, on which
the decision turned was whether the Chan
cellor erred in excluding from the jury on
the trial Of the issue certain dispositions
offered to sustain the credit OF Charles
Mink, an alderman Of Philadelphia, who
had deposed that he had solemnized the
marriage which was in dispute.
The Court were unanimous in their opin-
ion that the Chancellor erred in excluding
the evidence, and therefore reversed the
decree entered by him. The result is thai
the case goes back to the Chancery Court
for 4 new trial OF the issue Of "marriage
or no marriage"