The herald., 1893-11-04
MRS. CUMMINGS TALE or WOE,
Stanford's Niece was Welded
to a Brute.
He Extorted Money from Her by the
Cruelest Methods.
She was Compelled to Sign Notes FOL
Which She IS Now Sued in
the Courts--sensational
Disclosures.

| By the Associated Press.
New York, Nov. 3.-The moving pa
pers of Mrs. Christie Lathrop Cunning
niece of the late Senator Stanford Of
California, and corroborative afidavits,
together with a statement by her coun.
sel in the supreme court chambers today,
developed one of the most remarkable
cases of cruelty ON record. Judgment
on one of the notes for $4,000, obtained
from her by her husband. led to today's
proceedings. Lawyer Joseph B. Barcus
appeared for Mrs. Cunning and moved
that the judgment secured in Conuecti-
cut by the Lincoln National bank of this
city on January 2, 1898, and also
at Saratoga on February 8, 1891, be
set aside. Marcus argued that the
judgment could not be collected,
as all Mrs. Cummings money was gone.
Supplementary proceedings in the sult
were subsequently brought to recover
on the note and Walter p. Butler was
appointed receiver of Mrs. Cunning Q
property. 1t was to prevent the re-
ceiver from getting at the legacy OF
100000 left by Leland Stanford, her
uncle, that Lawyer Barcus moved that
the Judgments be set aside, in order to
allow his client to come in and defend
the suit.
Her defense is that the note was OBJ
tanned while she was under duress, and
the bank had been notified before the
note in question was given that notes
were being obtained from her by force.
Mrs. Cunning recites numerous acts OF
cruelty on the part of her husband, now
dead. She says he ran away from her
and his creditors in November, 1888,
with $l5 200 of her money, after squan-
dering her fortune of 5000, 1000. He was
lost in a snowstorm in the Andes noun
tains in May, 1889.
Mrs. Cunning, in an affidavit, states
that four weeks after her marriage with
Cunning, he began threatening her and
despoiling her of her property.
He made her an inmate of an insane
asylum in Hartford. Conn.,, for six
weeks. Mrs. Cunning relates that on
one occasion when he wanted her to sign
a note, he presented revolver at her
head. At another time he choked her
till she tainted, and once he knocked
her down and injured her epine. To
save her life she signed the notes in
those instances. On still another oc-
casion, when she protested against sign
ing any more notes, Cunning knocked
her down, and grabbing her hands. bent
her fingers back until the flesh was
torn.
In October, 1887, Mrs. Cunning says
her husband leased a farm of his
brother near Norwalk, Conn.,, and
stocked it with thoroughbred horses.
and called it the Scientific stock farm.
He added 800 acres to it and sunk
5000, of her money. On October 80,
1889, he told her he wanted her to sign
more notes, and when she refused he
threatened 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 Hhe notified William 7.
Cornell, cashier of the Lincoln National
bank. of the duress she was under, and
that she would not be responsible for
the notes thus extorted from her.
Mrs. Cunning secured a separation
from. her husband in Connecticut in
February, 1889.
Ex'Judge Noah Davis and Lawyer
Daniel Gerber, in opposition to the mo.
tion, submitted an affidavit OF William
I. Cornell, in which he denied that Mrs.
Cunning notified him that she signed
the note or any notes while under
duress. 1t was shown that the bank
discounted many notes of the couple
previous to the one involved in the suit.
An officer of the Lincoln National bank
denied that they had any knowledge oil
the qurarels of the Cummings.