The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-15
MR., M'BIRNE Y'S
PAIR OF WIDOWS.
ONE COMES FROM THE EAST TO
CLAIM THE HOMESTEAD OF
THE OTHER.
A QUEER LEGAL TANGLE.
How A GAY DECEIvER WAS Sup
PORTED BY Two CoNFIDING
WOMEN.

Samuel Mckinney was gay deceiver
who lived and died in the trusting smiles
of two wives who loved and supported
him, and he is probably even now chuck
ling in glee over the legal tangle which his
evil ways made of the women's affairs. He
was married first in Ohio. In 1874 he came
to California, and while still fettered to his
Ohio love he bestowed the remnant of his
affections upon a Western woman who
was divorced from her husband, and, as
she thought, legally married her.
With extensive assistance from wife No.
MeBirney succeeded in acquiring some
little property, and upon this and trif1e
that now and then came from Ohio he
managed to live in peace and to work but
little. When he died his local widow filed
homestead upon the property which she
and Mckinney owned in common. But
the news of the death of the doubly welded
Mckinney travelled eastward rapidly, and
the widow in Cincinnati sent out here to
see what property her long absent husband
bad left. She found first of all house and
lot on Pine street, near Broderick, in this
city, and living upon it was Mrs Mckinney
No. and a family of three grown-up chill
dren. Mrs. Mckinney found, too, that q
homestead had been filed on the property,
and this she moved to set aside. The case
was tried yesterday before Judge Slack,
and for purely legal reasons the Eastern
Mrs. McBIrney's petition was granted, and
the homestead has been set aside to her.
By the testimony submitted yesterday it
was shown that McBirney's course of de-
ception was complete and premeditated.
Mrs. Mary A., who was the Ohio wife,
through her attorney, submitted letters
which her recreant spouse had written to
h xlnlr 4l,.N,0 ILL.,
years ago back in the SOS, which bore testi-
mony to the fact that she and Mckinney
were one.
Mrs. Eudoxia Mckinney, who was the
California wife, had an answer to the
certificate, however. Her husband had told
her, she said, that years before he had
married her he had met woman in the
East, that she had borne him a son, but
that the woman had never been anything
to him. To quiet her he had said, he had
forged marriage certificate, and although
she kept it and believed in it, it meant
nothing. 1t was wife number 2, however,
whom he was deceiving, for the certificate
showed on its face that it was legal docu-
ment.
Mrs. Eudoxia Mckinney showed also
that the property upon which the home
stead bad been filed was purchased almost
entirely with her money after her mar
riage with Mckinney, but here a strange
turn of the law takes it from her. Unfor-
tunately, as was said by the court, she
never had been the wife of Mckinney and
could therefore have no claim upon COM
munity property. On the other hand Mrs.
Mary A. Mckinney had always been her
husbands wife, so to speak, and half of all
property which he left at his death be-
longed of right to her. 1t made no legal
difference, so far as the case under trial
was concerned, whose money purchased
fha Aop 1al
lawful title to it, and it then became COM
munity property between himself and his
true wife. She, therefore, was given the
homestead.
Mrs Eudoxia Mckinney has still another
chance, however. In civil action she can
show that it was her money which bought
the property, and SO little was Mckinney
financially interested in it her attorneys
have no doubt that it will all be given
back to her