St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-02-09
A BOLD CONSPIRACY
Is What the Court Unearths
in the Bapteau
Case,
And an Injured Woman Is Or
dered to Receive Her
Own.
The Divorce Set Aside and a
General Accounting
Ordered.
"Men Must Be Taught They
Cannot Profit by Dis
honor"

or, is statement recorded by Judge
Kelly in his decision flied yesterday in
the noted case of Annice G. Barteau
against her husband, William l.. Bar
teau. Mary Bailey and Josiah Fairchild.
Mrs. Annice G. Barteau was a respected
lady living at New Bedford, New
Hampshire, and had inherited about
$4,000. She was married to William l..
BarteaAon Oct. Is, 1873. and came with
him to make their home in St.
Paul. Being trusting and con-
fiding wife she turned over her
property to her husband. about $4,000 OF
1t being money and personal. property,
and gave him a full power of attorney to
act as her agent in managing all her
property for her use and benefit. The
property mounted up in value by the
tens OF thousands, and the do
nestle relations seem to h ave run along
smoothly for decade. The health of
Mrs. Barteau failing in 1883, she, with
the approval and consent of her nus
band, went TO Italy for medical treat
ment and TO regain her health. About
this period, it appears, the husband be-
came enanored of another rather pre-
possessing woman. and devised a plan
to get rid Of the old and OH with the
new idol OF his heart. and at the same
time deplete the purse of his wife and
seize upon her inheritance for the
especial behoof and benefit of himself
and his newly-found flame.
Judge Kelly, in deciding the case, re-
ports the substance of the above as
findings of facts, and, in addition there
TO. says substantially as follows: The
parties lived together as man and wife.
with the exception of certain voluntary
separations, until June 10. 1854, Mrs.
Barteaa having previous To that time
been to Europe for about yearIn quest
of health. and shortly after her return
again on that date went to Europe,
when. for good cause. there was
A VOLUNTARY SEPARATION,
the husband remaining in 81. Paul
and acting as her agent as has been
stated. He agread to send her. ont of
the income of her property. 81 % a
month, which at this time amounted to
at least $780, 900. She remained in Eu-
rope. with the consent of her husband,
until March |. 1899. He RENTED her
500 month for the first three months,
and after that from S15 to Sl50 month.
In the early part of the year 1855, the
unlawful, Illicit and aduIterouS inter-
course with Mary Bailey became mani-
fest, but in the preceding year Bartrau
became acquainted with her, she then
living at 5g4 Jackson street adjoining
the house lived in by Bart au.
She moved to 800 Exchange
street in the fall of 1884, aud
Barteau rented and occupied rooms in
the same house, and they went through
the form of a marriage, six days after
the date of an alleged divorce from the
former wife. The plaintiff gave three
powers of attorney to Josiah Farchild,-
shortly after giving the one to her hus-
band, but they were not joined in by
the husband; but while in Italy in 1874.
she gave Fairchild another power of
attorney. constituting him her agent TO
transact her business, the husband
shortly after joining in that power of
attorney. Fairchild never received nor
had control of any of her money. but the
husband received and controlled it.
Some time prior TO Sept. ), 1885. VIII
lam l.. Barteau and Mary Bailey entered
into an unlawful conspiracy, having for
its object the fraudulent transfer to
Mary Bailey. without compensation paid
TO Barteau, of all the personal property,
money and real estate i'm his care and
belonging to the plaintiff; and for the
purpose of continuing said William l..
Barteau In the control of the property
after he should procure divorce from
his wife, when Barteau and Mary Bailey
should intermarry and enjoy the prop
erty of Annice q. Barteau, the plaintiff.
Mary Bailey had no means of her
own, and as a
PART OF THE CONSPIRACY
she bought real property with the money
belonging to the plaintitf-taking the
title thereto in her name of Mary Bailey
with the purpose of reselling il for
profit. She did realize large profits.
In 1884 William l.. Barteau fraudu-
ientiy caused to be made and delivered
to Mary Baily large number of promis-
sorry notes. and sundry mortgages given
to secure them, given 10y several per-
sons for the purchase price of lands be-
longing to the plaintiff, they having
been made and delivered To Barteau as
the purchase price of lands belonging
to the plaintiff, the notes being payable
to the plaintiff. Ali these were as
signed to Mary Bailey, besides large
sums of money, the proceeds OF invest
ments in real estate. There WAS no
consideration paid by Mary Bailey for
this property, and there has never been
an accounting thereof made to the
plaintiff.
AS part of the conspiracy between
him and Mary Bailey, William L. Bar
teau, on September 5, 1855, began an
| action for divorce from the plaintiff. ON
| the grounds of deSprtion for three
years. These allegations were known
by Barteau to be false at the time he
exhibited the complainant at the time
| of the hearing of the cause. The sum-
mons to answer the action for divorce
| and copy of the complaint. together
| with letter, were sent by mail to the
| loi in fol ha efr
| 10 the summons. accepting service Of
notice to the action. and returned it 10y
mail, as she had been requested TO do,
to John w. White, an attorney. at St.
| Paul.
| Prior to this time all the property of
| Mrs. Barteau had been transferred to
Mary Baily. 1t was claimed to amount
to Sl00.000. but the court finds that the
value of the property so unlawfully
| transferred is not clearly apparent to
| the court, but
| AMOUNTS AT LEAST TO $4,000.
At the time the summons was dpliv-
| cred to the plaintiff she had been very
ill, and continued seriously i'll there.
after with typhoid and brain fever, last
| ing several months. Barteau wrote ael
letters, in which he threatened her thai
unless she consented to his divorce lac
would sacrifice her property, and thus
leave herwholly without means. William
Barrett. an attorney for him, and Bar
teau himself proposed aud offered If she
would consent to admit service of the
| summons and complaint for divorce, anC
promise not to appear and defend the
action she should receive monthly In
come of S75 or more. as she desired it.
Mrs. Barteau employed John W
White as her attorney. and Informed
him that it was false as alleged in the
complaint as to her willful deSertion fol
three years. She advised the consent
to the proceeding for divorce upon con
dItion that she be allowed $3.50 month
as she feared that the property woulC
be sacrificed and she would get nothing
! White arranged and secured a nott
from Mary Bailey for $4,000, secured
by mortgage on certain property con
/ yeyed TO Mary Bailey by Jo,iah Fair
child as attorneyin fact for Airs. Bar
teau. and by William l. Bartean hl