Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1882-10-19
MlSSOURI STATE NEWS.

MISSOURI STATE NEWS.
Curious Contradictions in a Widows Suit
Life.
One of the most sensational suits on
record has Just been decided in the United
States Circuit Court ut st. Louis. In 1858
William Wackerle, q farmer at Carver,
MIMI. married Walburgs Schneider, and
they lived together on the farm until 1862.
when he enlisted In the Ninth Minnesota
Regiment, in which he served until 1854,
when he was discharged for physical disa-
bility. He returned to the farm for . year,
when he sold it, and after that worked as .
common laborer and railroad hand at various
places. In Milwaukee, Wis, he took out
two insurance policies on his life. one in the
Etna Life and the other in the Mutual Life
OF New York. Both were made payable to
his wife. In 1868 he moved to Sacramento,
CAL. and 1870 to Quincy, Ill. In the fall Of
1872 he left her at that place, and was next
heard of at Marshall, Texas, and was shortly
afterward employed on the Texas Pacific
Railroad, near Shreveport. On the 25th of
December, 1872, q man was killed by being
run over by q passenger train near Shreve-
port, and, an inquest being held, some pa.
pers were found on the body indicating that
the deceased was William Wackerle. This
was not deemed sufficient Identification
BY the coroner's Jury, and they re-
turned their verdict that the deceased
was an unknown person." Mrs.
Wackerle did not hear of the matter until
January, 1878, and in the meantime had
paid the premiums ON the two policies for
that year. As soon as she was informed Of
the death she went to Marshall, Texas, and
Shreveport. La, to gather evidence that tho
deceased was her husband. She submitted
these proofs to the company, but they
deemed them insufficient, and refused to
pay the Insurance. She brought suit against
the Etna in the State Court of Louisiana at
Shreveport. retaining Hon. Alexander
Boardman, now Judge of the United States
District Court of Louisiana, as her counsel.
On the trial she obtained judgment against
the company, and defendant appealed to tho
Supreme Court of Louisiana. Pending this
appeal, Joseph Wimmen, an attorney In
the employment Of the defendant, went
back to California and brought back man
claiming to be William Wackerle, the sup
posed dead man. He was produced before
the Supreme Court and numerous affidavits
were presented testifying that he was tho
identical William Wackerle on whose life
the policies of insurance were taken. Mrs.
Wackerle, however, denied his identity, and
pronounced him q fraud. But the Su-
preme Court took q different view. and re.
versed the decision of the Circuit Court
OF Shreveport. On the strength of this de-
cisfon, Wackerle, real or fictitious, as the
case may be, applied to the Government for
q pension and obtained it, drawing the full
amount for sixteen years, from 1864 to 1887.
Mrs. Wackerle brought suit in the United
States Circuit Court for the St. Louis dis
trict against the Mutual Life of New York.
A large amount Of testimony, oral and from
dispositions, was offered on both sides, about
equally divided as to the identity of the
man. Several witnesses who knew Wack-
erie tn Minnesota and elsewhere testified
that the man produced by the insurance
company 10 William Wackerle. Among
these witnesses is John Wackerle,a brother,
who seems sincerely to believe the man is
what he represents himself to be. The |
% claimant' swore directly to be-
Ing the husband of the plaintiff |
in the case, and detailed number of cir. |
cumstances and events connected with their |
life. But on cross -examination he could |
not tell bow many children they had, where |
or when thsy were born, or how many were |
living OF dead. He could not even tell the |
names of all of them. Several other things |
which husband could not fail to know he |
either had no remembrance or knowledge of. |
His direct testimony was not exactly broken |
down, but his cross examination was of |
such q character as to lead to the belief he |
Is playing the part of impostor. The Jury |
found verdict in Mrs. Wackerle's favor, |
FOR $6,597. Mr.. Shepley, for the insurance |
announced that he would appeal |
the case. The theory of the attorney for |
has personated her husband is none other |
than Chris. Wackerle, brother of the de.
ceased husband.