Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-02-11
A LONDON BARNARD
Suing for Possession OF One OF the Rich.
est Estates in New York City, Inelud-
ing the Madison Square Hotel,
Claiming to be the Widow Of William z.
Hynes, who Was Thrown from Car.
rage In London and Killed.

ALbANt, ~. L. IcDludIy NC SOo1t
of Appeals in this city is now considering, |
and will in a few days decide, a case which
is before it for second time, and which is
OF more ban ordinary interest. The action |
involves the sufhciency of an alleged mar
riage, the legitimacy Of the children, and in
cidentally the ownership of the Madison |
Square Hotel and other valuable real estate |
in New York City. 1t appears that William |
r. Hynes, q gentleman of Southern birth, |
ample means, liberal education and high |
family connections, was tor years domiciled |
in New York City as bachelor, but for a |
long time annually visited Europe for recrea- |
ton and travel. In 1871 be went to Europe,
and from that year until 1874 appeared TO |
have reversed his habits, spending greater
portion Of his time abroad and Wis.,
itipg America only during the sum-
mer season, though he retained his Amer
lean citizenship and his love for the
laud OF his birth. 10 June, 1874, Mr.. Hynes
was thrown from a carriage in London and
received injuries from which he soon alter
ward died. His remains were embalmed,
brought to this country and Inferred, and the
sisters of deceased, Mary J. McCreary and
Lavina Gay, took possession OF his estate,
which was largely landed property IN New
York City. Shortly thereafter, a woman
calling herself Mary Ellen Hynes claiming
TO be the widow of the deceased, with VIM.
r. Hynes and Andrew Hynes, claiming to
be the children OF the first plaintiff, and the
| late VIM. r. Hynes, commenced an action in
| ejectment against the deceased's sisters and
| tenants for the possession of the large prop
erty mentioned.
LONDON CAB-DRIvER's DAUGHTER.
| The testimony in the case shows that Mr..
| Hynes, tarryipg at the Langhsm Hotel,
London, in the spring of 1871, made the
| acquaintance of the woman who claims to be
his widow. She was known at the hotel,
where she was employed as "still-room
maid" az Elizabeth Saunders, she having
been married 10 enc William Saunders, who
| was then deceased. Her maiden name was
Mary Eliza Dobson Mills, her father being
London cab-driver. The deceased and Mrs.
Saunders became devotedly attached to each
other. Soon after their meeting she left the
hotel aud took lodgings at 169 Cleveland
street. Here Mr.. Hynes frequently visited
her, and here he attended her on the evening
of the May Derby day in 1871, he having on
that day visited the races, and desired to re-
main at her lodgings, but she refused to per-
NIT him to stay, complaining, as it is alleged,
that he had not fulfilled promise OF mar
riage that he had made to her. Mr.. Hynes
replied that he did not believe in the mar
riage ceremony or the mumbling of priests,
but that if she would promise to be true and
faithful to him he would consider her his
wife; and thereupon, in the presence of
witnesses, he gave her a ring, which she
accepted on these conditions. Shortly after
this incident, in JuHe, 1871, the couple VS.
tied the continent They remained some
time in Paris, where they had a residence on
the Place Madeleine. There they were fire..
quently visited, and the evidence shows that
Mr.. Hynes always considered the plaintiff as
| his utfa In tho Of 1871 hafora The
birth of the eldest of the infant plaintiff
which event happened in Dscember-the
couple returned TO England, and to London
where they resided together in lodgings, and
finally at house in Kentishtowp, London
hired by Mr.. Hynes and called Vicioris
villa. In this place Mr.. Hynes died after
the occurrence of the runaway accident.
Among the reasons urged by the defendant.
10 show that the connection between the par.
ties was from FIRST TO last meretricious rather
than matrimonial, was one that the alleged
wife used on several occasions during the
connection, the name of "Eliz abeth Saun
ders," by which she was known while she
was employed as still-room maid at the
Langham Hotel. Another was of her ust
of tne same name at a bank, where she
opened an account and kept it from April
1878, to June, 1874. She, on her own part
/ claimed that the purpose for which tina
account was opened and kept was with tn,
, knowledge and consent of Mr.. Hynes t.
. provide for the wants of the family in cas-,
of his absence, etc. 1t also appeared
that the rules of the bank required tn,
consent of the husband to an accouu
J kept in the name of his vile, AMI
Mr.. Hynes not wishing TO give such con
3 sent, it was opened in her pre-nuptial name
September IA, 1874, after Mr.. Hyues'
death, the plaintiff opened a new scceun
, in the same bank, under the name of Eliza
beth Hynes. Evidence was given, how
ever, showing that nearly two years after tn
! connection of the parties and after the frs
widow as elizabeth Saunders" checks oil
the Union Bank of London for e100 an,
slo0 s. Sd respectively.
REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SAUNDERS.
8 1t is also claimed that upon the birth O
! each of the infant plaintiffs their mothe
procured to be recorded with the regisira
of the district OF Regents park a description
n OF herself, their mother, as "Mary Saun
q ders," in the first case, and of the father a
4 William Sander, 4 courier" and in tn
a case of the second child as mother, "F
: Saunders, of SO Victoria road, the father be
ing William Saunders, by profession a com
, mercisl traveller" The adult plaintiff denie
! all knowledge Of the registry Of the births O
| ner CnllQren. 1t was aOmltte0 tnat Inc a.
. legged marriage between the parties as be
@ tween British subjects was void, as sgains
! the laws of England; but the question wa
= rs to its legality between a citizen an
resident Of the United States on the on
!. hand and British subject on the othel
i with an implied intention of futur
j residence in this country. The cas-
# has b ZEN twice tried in the New York Cour
: of Common Pleas. On the fir.
4 trial the jury decided that ther
: was legal marriage between the partie
, aud found for the plaintiffs, who wer
q awarded possession of the property of th
- deceased and about $500 costs. TIE cas-
y. was appealed to the general term of tn
:, Trial Court, and to the Court of Appeal
p but the verdict was sustained. The defend
. ants availed themselves of their statutor
I right to a new trial upon payment of cost
/. etc. Up to the Court Of Appeals the resu
q has been the same as on the former tria
q John Hallock Drake and Joseph H. Choa
r. are among The counsel in the case, the LATTE
= appearing for the claimants.