The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1894-08-24
DECLINED TO REVOKE.

DECLINED TO REVOKE.
Another important step has been
taken in the Charles ThurstOn con.
tested will case, which has been in the
courts for a long time. Mr.. Thurston' s
will left nearly all his property to his
twelve year old daughter, Rose. On
June 23rd, 1898, the widow, Harriet
Thurston, petitioned to have the
household goods anduwearing apparel,
and S500of the other personal property
set apart for her use. This was
granted, as was also a petition for a
monthly allowance of S25 for support
of herself and Rose. The first order
of the court was appealed from by the
administrator, Frank Thurston, and
on July 18th, 1894, Judge Severance
made an order reversing Judge Tor
rey's order and the personal property
and household goods above mentioned
were decided to belong to the estate
and not subject to selection by the
widow. This decision also contained
the following dictum: The court finds
as conclusion of law "that the re-
spondent, Harriet Thurston, widow Of
said ChaS. ThurstOn, deceased, is anC
was not entitled to any allowance out
of the estate of said deceased, or tt
have the property mentioned in thu
order appealed from set aside to her a.
the widowof said deceased"
Upon this last conclusion, Mrs. Liz
zie Willard, daughter of the deceased
and guardian of Rose Thurston, petit
toned Judge Torrey require Harrie
Thurston to appear and show cause
why the order for maintenance of thu
family of the deceased should not be
revoked and set aside, and why the
administrator, Frank ThurstOn
should not be restrained from paying
the balance due and unpaid. Judge
Torrey found as matters of law, first
that the order of the court of June
23rd, 1893, allowing S25 per month fol
support of the widow and minor child
is valid, and d binding order on Franz
| ThurStOn, administrator; and
second, that the promissory
notes received for land!
are not subject to the provisions o.
said will. The court, in view of the
fact that Rose has gone to live will
her sister, Mrs. D. G. Willard, makes
an order reducing the amount paiC
for her support to S15 per month, anC
requiring the administrator to pay
this, and also S15S to the widow
This disregards Judge Severance's find
ing, although the latter, however
did not apply in this case, the order
for support being separate from the
other order, which Judge Severance
recently reversed.
In Ibis decision, Judge Torrey says
''The case appears to me to be one
of peculiar hardship. Charles Thurs
ton, the deceased herein, left no home
stead. His widow the respondent
herein has by order of the District
court, been deprived of the house
hold goods, wearing apparel, orna
ments and mementoes of every kline
belonging to her deceased husband
together with $500 of other persona
property, all set apart to her by the
court, with judgment for cost:
against her in the sum of S20.45; thu!
leaving her without home from he
husbands estate, without an article
Of furniture, of any kind, without
one dollar in money or other persona
property, with nothing but the stree
or the poor farm to resort to unles:
charitable friends provided for her, O.
this court1by it's order makesprovision
for her support out OF the estate o
her deceased husband during the ad
miniStration of his estate.
81 do not believe that any legisla
ture or any court ever intended by it
acts, or it's decisions, that the widow
of the deceased person should ever b,
placed in such position, SO long a
there was property belonging to tn
estate of said deceased, from which
she could receive a maintenance.
eff so, then l believe there shoult
be higher law than the acts of legis
latures, and the decisions of courts
The law of necessity, of humanity
and of common decency should TAX
precedence"
-Jonn Klein & Co. have received
word from Oliver Hall, of ColfaX
Wash, who is on his way to Washing
ton, D. c., that he will arrive in Man
| HatO SotTr1ou with tho ron,o;,oc -