The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-06-23
WAS CORT MARRIED.
Interesting Legal Point in the
Habeas Corpus Case.
THE woMAN's STORY TOLD.
Salts 20 Eject Gilman Miners--Action
for Damages In the Fedsra
Court--The B1otter.

The hearing Of the application for WIN OF
habeas corpus made TO determine the Legal pos
session of two infant children OF Jonn COR, ny
prourietor of the Standard thester. ana OF the
woman who for years has passed ss his wiie,
was begun before Judge Lichtsnosrg al aspeciAi
session Of court last evening. The point upoh
which the case hinges is the legitimacy OF me
gitimacy Of the children, and the fatner ~ -. sn
deayorine to establish the former conaition,
which would make him their legal guardian.
The mother, on the other hand, denies any mar
rfaee between herself and Cort, and claims the
custody OF the children because they sie Aie
climate
The only witness examined last evening was
the woman known as Mrs. Cort Both Fer az
rect and cross-examination were very ienesn!
and the most exact details were orougn. OUT
The substance of her story was that In oc'oDer,
1854, while in Minneapolis. she had begun 70 nse
with Cort, or White, the latter being MS true
name. OF this intimacy two children were
horn. They are John Edward White, aged
years and months and Harry William Linds-
lev White aged Is months. When she had gone
TO live with Cort she bad been married seven
years before, and she told him OF the fact De
had also been married, and agreed TO get di-
yorces for both, after which they would
wed. She was married to Geneross Lapier,
or Napoleon. IN Norfolk, Va, when she was IL
years of age her maiden name being Mary Louise
Deyerchere. She lived with Lapier for month,
when they separated by consent. There had
never been marriage between herself and Cort,
although they talked OF having one after their
divorces were procured. Cort secured his
divorce at Tacoma In 1855, but she had never
gotten one L. C. Gilman, Cort's attorney, sub
jected the woman TO q rigid cross-examination,
which lasted over an hour. The only point In
which he seemed TO gain much advantage was
IN drawing reluctant admission that she had
received numerous costly presents from Cort,
after she had testified to not being well cared
for. She claimed, however, to have furnished
$500 Of the $500 with which Cort began business,
and that the money since furnished her was only
the profits of the business
While they were In Johnstown, Pa, Cort went
TO Pittsburg and procured q certificate of mar
rage in order to blind the public, and especially
his lister, who had learned OF his former wife.
Cort had secured possession of the children by
taking her out for a ride and having them
removed while she was away. He then drove
her ont OF doors. Since that time she admitted
having gone into different variety dives about
town, bus had done so in order TO get some
money from performers The ring which passed
for her wedding ring she had pawned for 81.
At the close of the woman's testimony her at
torneys, fishbsck & Hardin, introduced q GER
fi1cate Of her marriage with Lapier, procured
from the recorder at Norfolk. Va, and rested
their case. Mr.. Gilman at once moved that the
court dismiss the writ and remand the children
to the custody OF their father. In support of his
motion he made lengthy argument and
cited several authorities. claiming that
the living together of the couple
- man and wife constituted . contract OF mar
riags and that the children were in consequence
legitimate. He further argued that the woman's
marriage with Lapier was void, because she
was under the age OF consent, and that she had
since been separated from him for over seven
years, which established the presumption either
of his death or divorce.
The opposing attorneys argued the legality Of
her marriage with Lapier, and that there had
been nc marriage contract between her and
Cort. After bearing the argument, Judgs Lch-
tenberg, with the citation of authorities to sus-
tain his position, denied the motion to dismiss.
His opinion was that marriage must be .
matter of fact Al well as of law, and
that the contract must be made with
specific words. Furthermore, when q man
and q woman commence living together
with an agreement of marriage, in order TO con-
stitute legal contract there must be no inter-
vening thing TO be done before the marriage
takes effect The fact that their agreement TO q
marriage depended on the procurement Of q
divorce for each Initiated the contract.
Mr. Gilman gave notice of an exception to the
ruling of the court. The case was continued
until next Thursday evening.