St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-12-24
The Supreme Court Sends the
Suit Back for a New
Trial,
Holding That Mrs. Barteau
Lawfully Gave Her Power
Of Attorney.
Outline Of the Complaint in
This Very Sensational
Litigation.
The Case Will Now Be Vigop-
ously Fought Out to
the End.

1t is learned through one of the at
torneys connected with the case that the
supreme court yesterday handed down
most important decision in the case
OF Annice q. Barteau, respondent, VS..
William l.. Barteau ct al, appellants.
The decision reverSes the judgment of
the district court and orders new trial
as asked for by the husband of Mrs.
Barteau. This new phase of most
remarkable case will be watched
with great interest. not only by the
legal profession. but also by the gen.
eral public. The complaint filed by
Mrs. Barteau in the action commenced
by her on March 26, 1889, the judgment
OF which case was reversed yesterday.
states that she was married at Bedford,
n. H., in October, 1878, to William l..
Barteau. In 1874 they came to st. Paul,
She at that time owning real estate of
the value of $1,000, which she intruSted
TO her husband for management, etc.
From the year 1877 to 1885 the property
under his care increased in value until
it was worth S50,000. In 1883, owing to
i'll health, Mrs. Barteau was compelled
to go to Europe, remaining under med
ical treatment until May, 1884, when she
returned to st. Paul and lived with her
husband until June, 1884, when they
voluntarily agreed upon a separation,
she to reside anywhere in Europe, and
he to care for her property under the
marriage agreement. retaining ont of
the estate sufficient income to keep
him in comfortable circumstances.
What Mrs. Barteau Alleged.
Mrs. Barteau in her complaint alleges
that in 1885 her husband entered into an
Illicit and adulteroGs aud unlawful aSSO-
citation with woman named Mary
Bailey, continuing until pretended
marriage took place. Mrs. Barteau
claims that early in 1885 her husband,
with Mary Bailey and one Josiah Fair
child and others unknown, did cOnsplre
to defraud her of her real estate, and
caused the same to be transferred to the
said Mary Bailey, with further intent
that her husband should procure di-
vorce from her (Alrs. Barteau), and chat
thereafter her husband and Mary Bailey
should be married, and enjoy and dis
pose of the said property.
In August, 1885, proceeds the COM
plant, Barteau wrote to his wife, VINO
was in Europe, that it would be neceS-
Sary for her to nominate some person
resident in st. Paul as her attorney in
fact, for the purpose of aiding him (the
defendanD in the management, sale and
conveyance of the real estate, and re-
Quested her to deliver the power of at
torney to one joseph Falrchild. relying
upon his honesty, and being in ignO-
rance of the unlawful conjunction ex-
isiIng, she appointed Fairchild her
power of attorney Aug. Ia, 1885.
In September, 1885, the complaint
continues, her husband commenced
pretended action for divorce, OIL the
ground of willful desertion. She was
ouly notified by publication in the
papers of the action, and March
II. 1856, decree of divorce was
granted, dissolving the marriage. Six
days afterwards Barteau went through
During the pending of the action for
divorce Barteau and Fairchid, con-
spring, decided a large portion of
plaintiffs property to Mary Bailey, and
then delivered over Mrs. Barteau's per-
sonal property to Mary Bailey, which
with the real estate amounted to $780,
600. To cover up this fraud Barteau, after
the marriage withMary Bailey, continued
to send mOuey to Mrs. Barteau, about
S75 to 800 per month, but soon after
discontinued to do so. Mrs. Barteau be-
came suspicious and asked for an ac-
counting of her property, and in April,
1856. receiving no reply, authorized st.
Paul lawyers to investigate for her.
She was very sick abroad. and in dire
want, and was left helpless and strand
ed by the defendant, the conspirators
meanwhile enjoying the property, which
was now worth S150,O00. The matter
went on until September, 1889; the case
was tried before Judge Kelly, lasting
for three weeks.
Decision of the Court.
Judge Kelly, in his decision, said that
the plaintiff, Mrs. Barteau. was entitled
to judgment and decree in the action
for divorce dated March II, 1856. and
ordered that the decree be vacated and
set aside, and granted the prayer of her
complaint that all the property be ac-
counted for, and Judgment for the
amount given in her favor. the defend
ant, William l.. Barteau, also being
enjoined from dispOsing of any of the
property.
Judge Kelly severely censured Bar
teau and Fairchild for their conduct.
and commented in very strong terms
upon the papers which purported to
have been signed by Mrs. Barteau. in
Italy, acknowledging the service of pa
perS i'll the divorce case, which she
StrenuouSly denied. Barteau soon after
the case was finished asked the court to
amend its findings; the court refused,
and appointed receiver of the
estate Oh behalf of Mrs. Barteau.
On June %, 1890, motion for a new
trial was made by Barteau on the
grounds that the court was in error on
many points, and also that new evidence
was to be introduced. The motion was
denied and an appeal was taken to the
supreme court in the October term.
The decision of Judge Mitchell yester-
day reversing the lower court.
is based upon purely technical
points, and says that the
legality of the transfer of the property
cannot be questioned, as Mrs. Barteau
had in due form given a power of at
torney to Fairchild to act on her behalf.
The whole case now goes back for trial
to the district court which will decide
whether the power of attorney was OBJ
tanned from Mrs. Barteau by fraud and
deceit. A great deal of bitterness has
been engendered, and the case will be
bitterly contested on both sides.
All Torn Up.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 23.-The presi-
dent to-day sent message to the senate
urging congress to at once, by joint
resolution or 0tharwicp ooptipua fbo