St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-11-04
A MANS AWFUL CRUELTY.
MRS. CUNNING FORCED TO SIGN HER
HUSBANDS NOTES


Leland stanford She Inherited
a Fortune-Choked and Most
: Brutaliy Treated at Different
Times by Her Fiendish Hus-
band When He Wanted Money.
NEW YORK, Nov. 3-The moving
papers of Mrs. Christie LaShrop Gun
ming. niece of the late Senator Leland
Stanford, of California, and corroborat-
i've atfidavitS, together with the state
ment OF her counsel. in the supreme
court chambers today, developed one of
the most remarkab BILE cases of cruelty on
record. Mrs. Cunning recites numer-
, Gus. acts on the part of her husband,
now dead, that make him appear in
. most memorable light. Cunning ran
away from his wife and his creditors in
November, 1888, with $4,000 of her
money, after squandering her fortune
of S250.000. He was lost in a snow
storm in the Andes mountains in May,
1889.
a Judgment on one of the notes for
$1,000 obtained from her by her husband
led to yesterdays proceedings before
Judge Barrett. Lawyer Joseph b. Bar
Gus appeared for Mrs. Cunning, and
moved that the Judgment secured in
Connecticut by the Lincoln National
bank of this city, on Jan. 2. 1880, AMI
also atSaratoga, OH Feb. 6, 1891, be set
aside.
Mr.. Barcus argued that the judgment
could not be collected, as all of Mrs.
Cummings money was gone. Supple
mentary proceedings in the suit were
subsequently brought to recover on the
note. aud Walter p. Butter was APP
pointed receiver of Mrs. Cummings
property. 1t was to prevent the re-
ceiyer from
GETTING AT THE LEGACY
of S10O,0 left by Leland Stanford. her
uncle, that Lawyer Barcus moved that
The judgments be set aside i'll order to
allow his client to come in and defend
the suit. Her defense is that the note
was obtained while she was under
duress, and that the bank had been no
titled before the note in question was
given that notes were being obtained
from her by force.
Mrs. Cummings affidavit stated that
after her marriage with Cunning they
went to Mount Vernon to live, and four
weeks afterward he began threatening
her and despoiling her of her property.
He made her all inmate of an insane
asylum for six weeks in Hartford,
Conn, beginning In May, 1889. Since
she was removed from the asylum she
has lived with her mother and two
children in Saratoga. Mrs. Cunning
Int ,if 10 Ian
wanted her to sign a note, her husband
presented revolver at her head. At
another time he choked her until she
tainted, and once he knocked her down
with his fist and injured her spine. To
save her life she signed notes i'll those
instances. On cold night in the winter
of 1887 Cunning wanted her signature to
another note, and because she refused
heidragged her out OF bed and forced
her to sign. On still another occasion
when she had protested against signing
any more notes, Cunning knocked her
down, and,
GRABBING HER HANDS,
bent her fingers back until the flesh
was torn. Sears are now visible on her
hands as the result of the injury thus
inflicted.
Mrs. Cunning says he made her sign
another note on Sept. %. 1888, when she
was about TO become mother. lie
drove everybody from ner room, and
told her that she must sign note for
more money. She protested, and fetch
ing pen and Ink 10 the bedside, he
grabbed her hand and held it so that he
caused her to trace her name on the
note. In October, 1887, Mrs. Cunning
says that her husband leased farmOf
his brother near NOrwalk, Conn, and
stocked it with Thoroughbred horses.
and called it scientific stock
farm" He added 800 acres to
it and sunk 5000, eco OF her money in it.
On Oct. %, 1858. he Induced ner to come
to this city. When on the train he told
her that he wanted her to sign more
notes, and when she refused he threat
ened to put her in an insane asylum.
He took her to the Chemical National
bank, and she there signed several
notes. including the one that figured in
the suit against her. Mrs. Cunning says
that she notified William T. Cornell.
cashier of the Lincoln National bank, of
the dureSs she was under, and that she
would not be responsible Tor the notes
thus eXtorted from her.
Mrs. Cunning secured separation
from her husband i'll Connecticut in
February, 1889.
Ex-Judge Noah Davis and Lawyer
Daniel Gerber, in opposing the motion,
submitted an affidavit of William I.
Cornell, in which he denied that Mrs.
Cunning had notified him that she had
signed the note, or any notes, while
under dureSS. 1t was shown that the
bank had discounted many notes OF the
couple previous to the one involved in
the suit. Officers of the Lincoln Ma
tional bank denied that they had any
knowledge of the quarrels of the Gun
nings.