The Portland daily press., 1884-01-09
INTERESTING CASE.
Decision Made in the Massachusetts su-
preme Court.

BOSTON, Jan. 3.-The Supreme Judicial
Court today made decision in the case of
John Hardy, petitioner, appellant from a de-
cree OF the Judge Of Probate for Suffolk
county, against the executors of the estates or
Ezra G. Perkins and Mary M. Perkins of
Hardy. The legal point in controversy arose
from the following clause in the will OF Mrs.
Perkins: II give and bequeath one-half of my
personal property to my husband" under
which bequest the petitioner, John Hardy,
claimed as the lawful husband Of the testatrix
The case was first heard by Judge McKim
OF the Probate Court, who made the following
findings:
That John Hardy was the lawful husband of
the testator, Mary M, at the time of her de-
cease; that John Hardy did not consent in
writing to the will of said Mary NJ; that John
Hardy, being the husband of said testatrix at
the time OF her decease, and not consenting in
writing to said will, IS entitled to receive one
half OF the personal property of the teststrix;
that John Hardy is not entitled 20 the bequest
OF one-half of the personal property OF the tes-
ta,rix under the clause in said will. "I give
and bequesth one-half of my p rsonaI prop
erty 10 my husband" From this decree Mr..
Hardy appealed. and the case came before Mr
Justice Charles Allen of the Supreme Court.
The marriage of John Hardy and the said
admitted, and proof was made that they lived
together as husband and wife in Boston to the
last of April, 1877, at No. Concord Square. 1t
was also proved that on or about April l, 1877
said Mary M. informed her husband that she
wished and intended to separate from him and
obtain divorce and marry Ezra G. Perkins
That Mr.. and Mrs. Hardy entered iuto an
agreement by which Mr.. Hardy was to allow
his wife to obtain divorce for adultery
against him, in consideration of $1,000 paid BY
her to him. Subsequently Mrs. Hardy pro-
cured the divorce from the Probate Court of
Salt Lake City, Utah, but as matter of fact
neither Mr.. or Mrs. Hardy were ever 10 Salt
Lake City. The divorce was granted on April
"a, 1877, and on the 15tn of May following
Mrs. Hardy married Mr.. Perkins. 1t also APP
peared that on June 2S, 1878, Mr.. Hardy vas
married to another woman, with whom he has
lived ever since. The main point relied upon
by the counsel for Mr.. Hardy was that as the
court in Utah had no jurisdiction over the
parties the divorce was null and void, and that
Mr.. Hardy was the lawful husband OF the tes-
tatrix at the time of her deceased.
Judge Allen found that the testatrix did not
mean to designate Hardy as her husband, and
that he was not entitled to the bequest therein
given to her husband. He also found that Mr..
Hardy was the lawful husband of the testatrix
at the time of her death; that the pretended
divorce in Utah was procured through his
c0nnlvanee aud assistance, and was void thut
her will was never assented to by him; but the
Judge ruled that Mr.. Hardy was not estopped
to claim his statuatory rights to one-hslf of
her personal estate, and ordered the decree of
the Probate Court affirmed. From this de-
ssee parties in interest appealed: and the full
court has sent down the following rescript:
decree of Probate Court affirmed. John
Herdy was not legatee in the will of the
testratrix. The intention of the testatrix is
to determine whether he was the person meant
bv the word husband"