The Sunday tatler and Jersey City express. (Jersey City, N.J.) 1883-1886, 1885-08-02
AND NOW SHE'S HIS WIDOW
MRS HARRISON MAX IsS ANOTHER MOVE
AGAINST THE TREELAND HEIRS.

Claiming that there Was a Civil Mar
rfage Between Herself and Green
vtlles OctogenarIan millionaire.
Sixteen years ago Mrs. Mary E. Harrison
a widow, and ct one time school teacher
in Greenville, commenced suit against Mr..
George vreelaad for breach Of promise.
The case at the time was one of great
notoriety, the papers all over the county
commenting on it. The woman obtained a
verdict for SIS 900, but the verdict being
thrown aside, compromise was effected,
and yreeland was given release.
In 1875 Mrs Harrison commenced
another suit for two bonds which she
claimed Vreeland had given hsr, one for
$4,000, and another for $4,000. The
first bond was dated twenty-four years
ago, and the second a short time before
Vreeland's death. Counsellor Flemming,
for the heirs, defeated the claim by the
accidental discovery that the plates of the
Federal stamp upon the bonds had not
been made till some years after she says
the bonds were executed
Meantime, after the suit for breach of
promise, and before the commencement of
of the second suit for the recovery of the
bond of idemnity, Mr.. Vreeland, who was
then about IS years of age, was married to
another woman-his third legal wife, by
the way--and who still survives him.
Vreeland died ten or eleven years ago. on
the Fourth of July, and by his will, after
the widows rights were attended to, the
property was left in the hands of trustees
to be divided among his heirs
About eighteen months ago Mrs. Harri-
son notified the Greenville Improvement
Company, the heirs of the Vreeland estate.
and others interested, that she was about
to institute a suit for her dover rights as
widow of George Vreeland, claiming that
transaction had taken place between the
pair which gave her that title The only
transaction known or heard of is one which
she claims took place in New York on June
8, 1868, to which she testified in the action
for tie bonds. In her testimony then. in
1875, Mrs. Harrison said that she and MIR.
Vreeland entered into an agreement, or
promise of marriage, before Albert I. Will
liams, in his Office in Nassau street but in
her,same testimony she says the marriage
was never consunmated This testimony,
taken after Vreeland's death, lawyers say
must necessarily upset any plans she has
laid to secure more money out of the estate
Recently testimony has been taken before
Master in Chancery Romano, and the final
hearing for the claimant is set down for
tomorrow morning. Testimony Was taken
by Mr.. Romano at hearing last week. It
was mainly a rehash of old evidence. She
has no certificate nor witness Of marriage,
and under the law of 1880 she must bring
some collateral proof of her marriage as
transaction.
When the Vreeland property was divided
the females and grandchildren each re-
ceived a portion of his personal property,
the real estate being divided among the
sons. The heirs, of whom there are now
between fifty and sixty, are expecting 8
final division with the conclusion Of the
pending suit, which will go to the Chan
cellor as soon as Mrs Harrison's claim has
been answered.
The widow of Mr.. Vreeland has remar-
ried, and Is now Mrs. De Vann. She lives
in Lafayette, where she is greatly re-
spscted. While it is generally known that
Vreeland during his lifetime was some
what wild, the heirs are greatly exasper-
ated at the persistency of Mrs Hsrrison,
which would indicate that he was not only
wild but criminal. 1t is likely that the pro-
ceedings tomorrow will be of an interest
ing nature.