New-York tribune., 1879-11-01
CLAIMS UPON J. W. PETTIGREw's ESTATE

CLAIMS UPON J. W. PErTIGREWS ESTATE.
SUIT BROUGHT BY MRS JANE Fo>HAY-Shh DE-
CLsREs THAI sHE Is THE WIDOW OF rhE
prCFDENT.
An important case, in which are involved the
results OF tue marriage in New-Jersey OF person
against whom decree OF divorce has been granted !"
NewYork has been before Justice Lawrence ana jury
the Supreme Court this week The contest ARISES
the disposition of the estate OF the late John W. fet
rew who AZ the time of his death this city in March,
1873 WAS worth In realty and personality more than
100000 The plaintiffs In the suit are Mary Petugrew'
the decedents mother Ellen r. Cole ana Mary J."eehs
his slsters Robert Pettgrew. his brother. ana hlchard
Downing The TWO last named sue as adminis'rators'
having been appointed by the Surrogate on March H.
1879 Tie defendant Is Mrs. Jane foshay' otner"ise
called Jane Petugrew."
The plaintiffs allege that I'm November. 1879 tue
defendant put in claim against the estate for $4,000
for services rendered John W. Pgrew ms his house
disaIowed and the defendant began SUIT for the
$40. 900 the Supreme Court. alleging that she acteu
all this period and performed the duties OF faithful
devoted attendant and during all his attacks
promise was afterward effected with the adu Illustrators
through b. Kimball and l. f. rherasson as attorney
her S17 0OO she signed on November 29leloDy the
Of Jane Foshay release Of all enia upon sp
was divorced from her first husband 10 isSs iof OF
her adnltery and '9a orb,ddep 10 NARY again dur
ing Mr. Toshsy's NE. In April, 1877. she
ins 10 be the widow OF John W. Petngrew; that
The letters Of administration granted TO Petugrew
and r. c. Downing had been granted without notice 10
her and asking t6at these letters should be revoked
and letters Issued TO her The plaintiffs allege tnat
rage with John W Pe,tgrew in the state Of New, New,
Jersey. 20 when he ana the is Nnu.York
Law applicable TO the marriage OF divorced per
sons. It Is further averred and II such marriage
occurred in FORM y was In contempt o. court 10 vio.a
hm any claim against the estate widow she had lost
II by her release OF all claims upon the estate III con-
Charges on Information and that defendant
"oi bad reputation for chastity. without business
oiaIi6ed Dy Jaw to become an administrative OF said
estate" Tie plaintiffs ask judgment that the defendant
Surrogate as the widow OF John W. Pettierew.
Tie answer of the defendant alleges that after several
divorce Mr. IOshay she was o married in tina, ,Sa,
State to JSnn w IRE IN Sa ana o as
husband aud wife After his death che employed
cute her claims against the his widow. She
advised that she could ony get such portion as te
release under advice OF her lawyers without knowing
what 1t or that she was releasing al her claims as
by Mr. Kmbal TO take gil 600 and sign these papers.
She cuarges information aud belief tbat the re-
maining So 900 were divided between Mr kimbal MI.
Therrassou and the administrators. The defendant
asks the dismissal Of the complaint and the annulment
Mrs Fosnay Pe;tigrew. the defendant, was witness
in behalf, although the rules or evidence uu
not permit tell of personal transactions between
the deceden and herself She said that she never learned
to read or write, aud married 10 Mr.. Foshay when
fourte years old Sheis fIythree years and not
unattractve Ia personal appearance. che first made
the of Mr. Pettlgrew at the house OF MT
FINK HObokeu N j., where she was living IN 1864
The proof OF her marriage to hlnrested principally
upon the testimony Mr. and Mrs Fink Mr.. Petit
grew, while calling the house day, Mrs FINK es
fed SAID her tnat he could not live without Mrs
Foshay. and he wondered II she would marry HIM.
When Mrs FOshay came In Mr.. Pettgrew asked her II
she would marry him. She answered afrmatiyey, aud
n Enn hey III.
lser HIS response II you you Will take Inc
for your husband and say will take you for my wife,
We snail be much married AS II there were twenty
ministers. take you for my wife," 81 take you
Tor my husband, said tue woman
Mrs Cole and other plaL ths testified In rebuttal that
after Mr. Pettgrews death the defendant had said sne
had not been married Mr. Pettigrew because
A divorced woman and couldn't marry again. The case
is not vet flushed Lewis JonnsIon ". a. Beach and
Albert Matthews Tor the plaintiffs, and Judge samuel
Jones ana Culver & Wright for the defendant