Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1889-04-20
sEssaTT0xAL SURF.


The Dsushter of the Late James Mathew
Begins Action &c Set Aside Dispose
OF His Property Mad Under His win
What from present appearances promise,
to be the most sensational suit filed in tb,
District Court for q long uhile-ff it evel
reaches q hearing in court-was one filler
yesterday evening with the clerk at his o:
Gee in the court house, from the complaint
in which the following synopsis of thu
ground of action is given. The suit il
brought by Martha g. Berdsn against John
0,Rourke. To the complaint 10 prefxed q
copy OF the last will and testament of the
late James Mathews, in which the name O
the plaintiff in this suit. who claims to b
the legitimate child Of Mathews, nowhere
| appears as q legatee or devisee. The Terri
torial statute on the subject OF failure to
provide for children in q will reads tina,
when a testator omits to provide in his
will for any Of his children or for the issue
| Of any deceased child, unless it appears
that such omission was Intentional, such
| child, or the issue of such child. must have
/ the same share in tine estate OF the testatoi
| as il he had died intestate."
The complaint contains the following
statements:
That on May 16, 1884, James Mathews,
whose true name was Patrick Mathews,
died in Butte, leaving q large amount ol
property, real u personal OF great value.
That he left q will under the name of James
Matthews: that plaintiff il the lawful and
only child of said Patrick orJames Ma.
thews, born in lawful wedlock and recog
mixed by him az such, and the sole heir to
his property. both real and personal. That
said will did not dispose of any of the
property constituting the estate of the said
Patrick or James Mathews, deceased, for
the reason that plaintiff. his Law full child
and heir, was not named Dr. provided for
therein, but was unintentionaIly omitted
from said will and it does not appear in
said will that the omission was Intentional.
Said will Was admitted to probate aboat
JUNE 8, 1884, and the order of the Probate
Court of Silver Bow county made naming
John O'Rourk, A.. 81. Mitchell and &.
De Ryckere executors, which action of the
court the complaint alleges to be unau-
thorized and void as notice to the heirs of
the deceased was nerer deposited in the
poetoffice at Butte or in any other, nor
proof OF having done so furnished on the
hearing OF the probate proceedings.
The complaint then sets forth, in detail,
the property of which the deceased was
possessed when he died, personal and real,
and asserts that on July 20, 1884. Mitchell
q DE Ryckere, as executors, without
right AND without any notice to the plain
it'd. wrongfully and fraudulently made and
delivered to John C'Rourke. without any
consideration therefor passing { O the estate
nj said Matthews q 1sod canvorr~ g. AZ
said O'Rourke the folio wing property be-
longing to such estate: One-half OF lot 16,
in block %, Butte, OF the value of about
10000; ons-fourth interest in the Pilot
lode claim, valued at 81, $50; 1-4OOth in.
terest in the Smokehouse lode claim valued
at about $1,000. That said transfer and
deed was null and void because the said
parties purporting to execute the said deed
as executors OF the said will had no au-
whatever to execute such instru-
ment because said will had never been pro-
bated as required by Law and because said
deed was an attempt to deprive said estate
oil property of the value OF $12,2 $50 with
out consideration. That the half of lot
6 in block % at the time of the attempted
and until now has had a rental
value OF $500 per month and the said
.'Rourke has since then appropriated the |
to his own use.
u further alleges hat about No.
7ember IL, 1884, the said Mitchell and De |
Ryckere, as executors, without any notice |
whatever, and without any effort to OBJ |
ain a fair price by competition, sold to |
he said John O'Rourke the following prop
rty belonging to the estate: Hall ofl
'2,341,13 money reported az in bank: |
latf OF $50 shares OF stock in the Original |
suite Mining company, value $3.50; half of
$50 shares OF stock OF the Amy and ST.
'ersmith company, valued at 81, 1926: half
1000 shares OF the capital stock OF the
stevens Gold and Silver Mining company,
'alue $500; one-haf of ten shares of the
liver Bow Water company, value 81, $50;
Ialf OF five shares of the Postoffice COM
value 1915; half the stock oil goods,
Tares. liquors and merchandise, value
a 1000; half the bar and bar fixtures,
talue $500; half OF the indebt-
due from O'Rourke &
fathews to sud estate, value S1,463 rs,
he said O'Rourke paying therefor So.
hat said sale was fraudulent and void:
said price was grossly inadequate and
he property Of a value far in excess OF the
aid price received and was made in fraud
I plaintiffs rights and of the estate.
Plaintiff further alleges that at the time
| Mathews death he was the owner and
older OF a certain note made by O'Rourke
D Mathews for Sic. 600 with interest at l
cent. q month, frou February %,
1913, which was secured by a mortgage,
nd that Mitchell and De Ryckere cancelled
mortgage and surrendered the note to
'Rourke without the estate receiving any
alue for the note or mortgage.
Plaintiff asserts that the deceased
was the owner of lots 21 and %
block IA, lot z in block 29, half of lot l
block "a, half of lot Is in block 20, half
lots Is and 16 in block 10, half OF the !
lst twelve feet for the length of 100 feet
inning north from Granite street. and =,
4OOth interest in the Smokehouse lode
aim. all OF which was advertised for sale I
? the executors three times in succession.
> each OF which occasions, it is alleged. j..
'Rourke put in a bid Of $50, $50 and other =
arties bidding an advance OF 10 per cent?
! his bid, but the executors d~isregarded d
!ese dvanc bid On each occasion andI
the property for sale again a
It'll the third time, when O'Rourke'st
d was put in in his " name and those y
two other persons which the executors
eepted, d~lsregarding the Others as before, e
I'd alter the deeds were made to these
rec parties, the property was decided
er to O'Rourke by tile other two with Z
ght exception specified. 1t is also ALLEGED
the complaint that the executors, with. r
t notice to any n OF any sale, sold the IL
rsonal jewelry OF the deceased to
Rourke for $95 which it is claimed was 7
nth $4OO, and that the jewelry in bank L
counting to 81, 900 was turned over to p
q as legatee. The plaintiff, BY her at
'neys, Mcbride & Haldorn, alleges that t,
those transfers were fraudulent and a.
lys that they lie set aside and she de-
red owner OF the property, and asks for al
accounting OF the rents and profits. La,
Ito