Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1890-04-24
HlLES NOT A BIGAMIST.

AHOCIl6f CudpISF III the lie OF george
Hiles, the millionaire lumberman
whom Miss Elizabeth Carter is suing for
breach-of-promise, was shown up in the
supreme court this morning. 1t told
the story of his first marriage, and his
divorce for the purpose of marrying his
present wife. When Judge Gibson
called up the motion asking that the
plaintiff be required to give the defend
ant bond for costs on the ground that
the litigation was veXatious. Attorney
Sutherland, representing the defendant
arose, and, with triumphant smile on
his face, made a statement to the court.
He reminded the judge that a week ago
Miss Carter had produced an affidavit to
the effect that George Hiles was d
married man when he married his
present wife, and that his first wife did
not die until some years after the
second marriage had been contracted.
Upon that point, he said, he had an
affidavit he wanted to read. From out
of big bundle of papers he drew a
brown-covered document and began to
read it with great delIberation, pausing
to impress the court with the telling
points in the affidavit. The affidavit
began admitting that he was married on
November 7, 1S43, to Amanda Brown. at
Pennington, Mich, as set forth by
Miss Carter's affidavit; that it was true
that he had two sons by that marriage,
James and Frank Hiles who had been
at various times associated with him in
business; that Amanda Brown lilies
did die near Sparta, on March %, 1859,
and that there were numerous persons
living who had attended her funeral.
But that she was his legal wife at the
time of her death the deponent said
was entirely untrue," and as Mr..
Sutherland read the part of the
affidavit following, he glanced at the
reporters to see if they were listening.
"And she had not been the wife of
this depOnent," he read, "since the
entry of decree of divorce on the 29th
day of March, 1865, q duly certified
copy whereof is heleunto annexed"
Miss Carter's attorneys remembered
that Mr.. Hiles had said he was married
to Mary Downing, on July 4, 1854,
almost year previous to the date of
the divorce, and their faces lighted up
as they thought how nicely the shrewd
old capitalist had caught himself, but
their satisfaction was short lived. Mr..
Sutherland continued: ttDeponent
further says that on the 4th day of July,
following said decree of divorce.
defendant was married to his present
wife, Mary Hiles, by the Rev. George
Smith, a Methodist clergyman, at
Baraboo, SauS. County, Wis, in the
presence of w. II. Clark, an attorney
at-law, and Harris Searles, business
man." He had given the date as july
i, 1854, in his examination because he
had no memorandum, and could
remember only that it was on the 4th of
July following his divorce. which he
thought was in 1855.
Attached to the affidavit was certi-
fled copy of the divorce case which was
brought in the circuit court of Monroe
County. Amanda Hiles was a plaintiff,
and it was set forth that on September
l9, 1854, the second day Of the term,
she had been granted temporary ali
mony of 500, for which one, James S.
Lyndes was appointed a receiver. with
bond Of 81 900. The case was contln-
ued, and on the next entry shows that
on March 20, 1855, Amanda Hiles and
George Hiles were both sat liberty to
marry the same as if they had never
intermarried." The decree was signed
by civilian Knowlton, judge of the
judicial COURT