The herald., 1893-11-14
A PECULIAR CASE INSTITUTED,
Humane officer Wright Sues
His Wife.
He Wants a Quit Claim Deed Can.
celled.
He Charges That Mrs. Wright Got
His Property by Deception
and Misrepresenta-
tion.

Humane Officer M. V. Wright of t his
city has brought novel and probably
sensational suit against his wife, Mar
garet D. Wright, who lives in Riverside.
The suit was instituted in the superior
court OF that county. He sues to have
a quit-claim deed of $40, 900 worth OF
orange orchard and vineyard cancelled
and the ranch declared community
property.
Mr.. Wright is well known in this city,
where he has been connected with the
Humane society for nearly seven years.
He is an ex-preacher, having organized
the frat Baptist church in Riverside in
1874. He is also an old school teacher.
The cult grew out OF a very peculiar
state of affairs. Mr.. and Mrs. Wright
have not lived together for years, al
though there has been no divorce.
Wright gave the quit-claim deed to his
wife in 1885.
A HERALD reporter saw Mr.. Wright
yesterday and asked him about the
case. He stated that he signed the deed
under a misapprehension; that he was
at the time teaching school in Cotton.
An attorney named Conway, who is
dead, took the document to Wright,
while the latter was in charge of his
clase in school. Conway briefly stated
to him that Mrs. Wright wanted her
husbands signature to facilitate a
$1,000 loan, which was purposed to raise
mortgage held by the Riverside Water
company. He says that since he signed
the document his wife refuses to give
him any OF the proceeds OF the property,
and that during the last eight years he
has received nothing from the valuable
output Of the orchard and vineyard. He
has no further complaint to make
against his wife. for he says they had
lived happily together for % years. He
does say, however, that Mrs. Wright
obtained the deed through false repre-
sentation snd deception.
Mrs. Wright in her answer and in a
deposition taken recently, tells very
different story, and one which does not
place her husband in a very favorable
light. She AYERS that ever since she
was married to Mr., Wright, which event
occurred st Chillicothe, o., in 1859, she
has practically had to support him, az
we'll as to provide for the offspring of
their union. She AYERS that she began
by letting him have money for their
wedding expenses, and has been COM
PEELED TO take care of him financially
since then.
She denies that any fraud was prac-
ticed in securing the deed, and declares
that he signed it by his own free will in
order that she might have the property
for hnr 20 AL.
benefit Of their children. AS for his
charge that she deserted him and refused
TO allow him to live with her after he
had signed the deed, she says that it is
wholly untrue. She declares that on the
contrary when he was suffering from an
injury two years ago, in Los Angeles,
she went there and cared for him and
urged him to return to Riverside with
her, saying that there was enough prop
erty for both and begging him to come
home and "live like other people" She
AYERS that Wright deserted her 10 years
ago, and has done nothing to provide for
her since.
Mrs. Wright's deposition is a volum-
inous document, and is mainly devoted
to a recital of the various times and
places at which she has furnished her
WAeii LhoAoyy nhd W lueLhuCcs
where she says he has failed to provide
for her. She contends that her ranch,
which wae purchased scme 20 years ago,
was bought with her own money, which
che had earned while employed as a
nurse in a hospital at Washington,
D. G.
Considerable interest attaches to the
case from the peculiar circumstances
connected with it. and also from the TACT
that both Mr.. and Mrs. Wright are well
known here and in Riverside. Mrs.
Wright has resided in the latter place
continuously for many years, and is
spoken OF az hard-working and indus.
trious woman, who has acquired COM
potency by many years of toll.
The suit promises to be etubbornly
contested. Carver & Preston Of Los An
geles will act for Mr. Wright and Nc
Intyre d Taylor of Riverside will look
after the interests OF Mrs. Wright. The
trial was set for last week, but was
postponed until December 9th, at the
request of the plaintiff, who desired
further time to examine the amended
answer put in by Mrs. Wright.