The New York herald., 1879-11-01
THE COURTS.
Testing the Validity Of an Alleged
Informal Marriage.
CURlOUSLY CONFLICTING LITIGATION.
Trust Deed in Favor of the Children of
German Baroness.

German Baroness.
John W. Pettigrew. formerly q we'll known cit,
contractor died on March H. 1875 leaving perso,a,
estate valued at $500 and real estate worth
$4,000. Robert Pettigrew his brother. and Rich
ard C. Downing appointed administrator, ~
his estate. As is well known. there have been for
long time various litgations before the SURROGATE
and in the Supreme Court growing out of claims on
the estate, made in the frst place by Jane Foshay
for $4,000 for services housekeeper for Mr.
Pettigrew. from May. 1866. up to tho time of his
dea,h. and next further claim on her part to be
appointed Administrative of the estate as Mr.
Pettigrew's widow. In the first suit he,
complaint set forth that she gave up her tin
wholly to Mr.. Pettigrews on vario,
occasions when he was severely i'll and that
promised that she should be paid literally for such
services but failed to make provision for such pay
ment. having in his last illness been brought homo
insensbe, in which condition he remained until he
died. While this action pending she gave as is
alleged to Richard Kimball power of attorney to
cuted a release for $1,000 the action ther.unon
being discontinued. Kimball. she says, gave her
$1,000 Of this sum. telling her that this all he
received, but subsequently modified this statement
by saying that he kept $4,000 for his services.
Meantime she kept only $1,000 and intrusted
for her. Hfterward she asked to have
this $4,000 paid back to her. but falling to get IL
employed other lawyers to collect it from Kimbal.
time that the administrators had paid 900 in set.
tlement of her claim for services that her suit was
for services and that in her release she declared
that she not the wife of Pettigrew in his life
time and made no claim against his estate as his
toned the Surrogate aside the letters of ad.
mnistration, claiming that in April, 1866, she was
married to Petigrew in Hoboken. N j.. and that be.
fore the letters OF administration granted no
notice was served upon her as his widow As
will be seen the counter allegations conflicting
in character. This. however did not terminate the
litigation. and while the proceedings initiated in the
Surrogate's Court are still pending suit was begun
brother sisters and administrators of Mr. Pettigrew
to restrain further steps being taken in the
tion before the e.. Surrogate. This suit is brought
ton Of the question whether she was married
to Mr.. Pettigrew and whether release made by her
ard O. Kimball and Louis F. Therasson, her cuun-
sci. and the administrators OF Mr. Pettigrew. The
Foshay and duly acknowledged before notary, and
the Endorsement by her of the check for $4,000
to her order The defendant. in her answer.
of Mr.. Pettgrew that she never released her rights
such and authorized the suit brought her
behalf for services. She that after the death Of
Mr.. Pettigrew she applied to Messrs. Kimball Il
Therasson to aid her in the prosecution and mainte
his widow; that she signed all papers presented by
them to her; that Kimball told her she could only
get SO much out of the estate as the admin
she would sign certain papers presented to
her by the name of Jane Foshay she would
be paid $l1,000. which would be the utmost she
would be paid in any event. and that signing her
name Jane Foshay would not impair her claim as
says further that she did not read the papers she
signed; that she cannot. in fact, read writing,
read her own name and that tho contents were not
told to herr that she signed the release by touching
the pen while her lawyer wrote her name, and that
Kimball's clerk wrote her Endorsement the check.
he having como to her house ard telling her that ii
q declaration
Pettigrew. She charges that Kimball and Therasson
were in cousion with the administrators and asked
that the power OF attorney and release declared
void. Mrs. Foshay or Mrs. Pettgrew. whichever her
may be. married in 1910 to John d. Foshay.
with whom she lived tor eighteen years. and then
was divorced from him, she being forbidden by the
decree to marry again during his lifetime. 1t is
claimed by the plaintiffs that. even IL she
ried to Pettigrew. such marriage was invalid
der the decree of divorce. and that for tho
the went to New Jersey and WAS married HS thsrs
while resident of this state. One of the questions
to be determined by the jury is whether at the time
of the alleged marriage she was resident Of New
Jersey.
The determination Of the various Of fact in
connection with the above suit is to be settled in
the trial of the now in progress before Judge
Lawrence holding Supreme Court, Circuit. Alarge
ladies' The central figure Of interest in the examine
ton thus far has been the defendant. She is woman
somewhat past fifty. dresses with becoming taste.
and altogether In quite ladylike in appearance. She
gave her testimony with quiet self-possession which
shaken but slightly by the close and search
A H.
senior counsel for the plaintiffs. Her testimony was
mainly recital of the facts given above and as
says that May. 1860. she went to reside in Hobo
ken, intending to make that her permanent resi-.
dence that she lived there for six years. that she
there to No. 1871 East Thirtisth street. o where i
she lived until 1876 Under the provisions of the
codo forbidding evidence as to connections per.
sonal transactions with deceased person in suit
by or against his administrators she was not por.
tn tn AIr
Pettigrow-as to where he lived. whether she
present when he died. or whether she attended his
funeral. She slowed. however, to state that.
Robert Pettigrew called for her in car
riage and took her to the funeral. On
maiden name Jane Helms; that she
only fourteen when she married Mr.. Foshay:
she never learned to write or read wrting that she
had not lived with Foshay since 1858; that she rst
met Pettigrew in February. 1864. at the Hoboken
but that he subsequently called the house of Mr.
Fink. where she was boarding. and saw her often
until they were married.
Mr.. and Mrs. Fink were examined as to the mar
riage. The latter testified that afternoon
Mr. Pettigrew called and spoke of recent coldness
between Mrs. Foshsy and himself. and expressed q
fear that she did not love him as he loved her.
adding that he could not get along without her and
not marry her; he asked her If she thought Mrs.
Foshay would have him; she said she went up
that Mrs. Foshay at once once v went mt down stair;
with her. when Mr.. Pettgrew asked her II sns
was willing to marry him. She said she was. ana
he said they must be united Immediately She
asked how could they be married without . min
lister. "If you say you will take me for your nus
band and say will take you for my wife we will
be much married IL there were twenty min
isters'' is what Mr.. Pettigrew told her. He then
aided. "I will take you for my wife," She said. 81
will take you for my husband. He remained there
until the next morning. Mr.. Cuser and various other
witnesses testified that Mr.. Pottigrew introduced
the defendant to them his wife, Mrs. Cole. sis
ter of Mr.. Pettigrew, testified that on tho morning
succeeding her brothers death the defendant
urgently pleaded 10 be allowed TO go TO the funeral
that IL the decree of divorce had not been in
the way John would have married her. The exam
ipation OF witnesses will be resumed this morning
Associated with Mr.. Beach Lewis Johnston and
Albert Matthews, who appear for the plaintiffs Ex-
Judge Samuel Jones and Messrs Culver and Wright
appear for the defendant
ESTATE OF A BARONESS.
Tho trial of very interesting case has just been