Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-05-23
A FAMILY DIFFICULTY.


A case was called on in the Third
district court this morning which had
Il been proceeded with would probably
have been productive OF some inter-
esting facts as the testimony OF the
witnesses developed.
10 was an action brought by one
Elizabeth Bunker, plural wife,
against another woman also named
Elizabeth Bunker, the legal wife Of
one Thomas Bunker, now deceased.
The plaintiff sought TO have decree
OF the cour, ndjudgIng plaintiff to be-
the rightfil owner IN fee Of the follow.
Ing promises Beginning ut the north
west corner Of lot o, block ~, plat -,
Salt Lake City survey, running thence
east y rods, thence south 20 rods,
thence west y rods, thence north 20
rods TO place u beginning. IL II con-
tended that the defcndgnt has no right
OF title therein. and plaintiff prays
therefore TINT her claim bo declared
null and void.
Plaintiff, In her complaint, states
that for thiriy.fOur years past Hhe has
been In possession and entitled 10 own
er.hip VI the land IN question. During
the year 1850, che alleges. Thomas
Bunker, by means Of fraud aud de-
ceit, Induced her 10 drink whisky and
other intoxicating liquors 10 such an
extent as 10 render her Incapable Of
understanding what she was doing,
and while IN that condition caused her
10 execute 10 him n deed for the land
above described In fec simple; that no
never nj any period during his lifetime
claimed this property or undertook to
Dust her from possession. Plaintiff,
throughout the past thlfty.four year,,
had paid all the taxes thereon. rhe
defendant, claiming 10 he tho widow
Of Thomas Bunker, had, by reason "
some proceedings recently aiken In the
Probate court Of Salt Lake County,
caused the property In controversy 10
bo set OF 10 her absolutely In fec ~ her
own.
In her answer, the defendant denies
that plaintiff IL entitled 10 any portion
OF the property, that any ffaud what.
ever had been praotlHod, ~ SGT forth by
plaintiff, or that the deed was procured
utN VNH NUlunlAfH
act. She alleges, further, that plain.
TN was polygnmous wife Of the late
Thomas Bunker, and by his permits
sion simply lived ON the promises In
question, without any right 10 owner.
snip. She denies that plaintiff ever
paid any taxes ON the property.
The claim Of plaintiff was therefore
without any right whatever.
Judge Judd, who appeared for the
plaintiff (the plural wife Of the do.
ceasod) said there was n oross-Dm.
plant filed, Of which he had no
knowledge until Just now, seeking TO
quiet the title, and ho asked, conso-
quently, that the original complaint be
taken NJ the answer thereto; II the
plaintiff fallod, the decree ~ 20 on the
cross-complaini.
II WINS stated by Judge Marshall (who
appeared ON the other sidel that the
defendant Elizabeth Bunker died ON
the 9th Of January In the present year,
and he asked that the name Of Henry
Bunker, the administrator, be sub
htituted in the action.
Judge Judd said he was not aware Of
this fact OF the Defendants death until
now.
u the course OF n conversation
which followed between Judge Zane
and counsel, his honor expressed an
opinion that oven ifa decree were oh.
tained through the administrator the
chances were II would not 10 worth
anything.
Eventually the case was continued
for the term, In order to enable Judge
Judd 10 substitute the names of the
heirs at law, minor children, In the
place VI the deceased defendant.