The Portland daily press., 1895-03-04
MRS. MALLEYS RIGHT OF DOVER.
She Alleges that She Signed 1t Away
without Proper Understanding.

Without Proper Understanding.
A Sequel to the Recent Assignment by
Hon. Edmund Is. Mallet, Jr., of Free
port--TroubIe Over the NJ ortgage Deed
on Which Fifty Thousand Dollars were
Raised.
A suit in equity has been begun in the
Supreme Court of the State by Mrs CLARA
II. Mallet, of Freeport, against her nus
band, Edmund B. Mallet, Jr., OF the
same place. This suit results from the
recent husi ness trou bles of Mr. Mallet
and from complications that have arisen
between himself and his wife since he
came into possession of his property.
1aat Mr.. Mallet and his wife have not
lived happily for some time has been
pretty generally known. On the Mallet
property at Freeport are two large
houses, quite near together. One of these
has been occupied by Mr.. Mallet and the
other By Mrs. Mallet, the two living COM
pletely separated. When Mr.. Maliet's
business troubles came upon him last
June so much of his property was in
real estate that Mrs. 'Mallet's right of
dover seriously interfered with the settle
ment. Some arrangement was made
whereby she relinquished that right of
dover and enabled Mr.. Mallet's attorneys,
Judge Joseph W.Symonds aud Charles
Sumner Cook. to effect large loan to be
used In putting the estate on it's feet
again. Mrs. Mallet now claims that when
she relinquished her right of dover she
did not understand fully the purport of
the paper which she signed; and she
brings bill in equity against her hus-
band and his attorneys, representing that
she was deceived and praying for redress.
He attorneys are WE. UImer and Gage
q Strout. In this bill in equity, which
is long legal document, Mrs. Mallet re-
cites that "on the goth day of March 1877
she was lawfully married to said Ed
mund B. Mallet Jr., and ever since has
continued to be, and now is, his lawful
wife, and has had by him five children,
four of whom are now living; that at
the time of their said marriage the said
Edmund was possessed of very small
means. and was dependent wholly upon
his manual labor for the support of
himsslf and his family, and SO continued
until on or about November. 1884, when
he received by testamentary gift from
his uncle, Thomas MaiIet, a very large
amount of personal property. exceeding
in value seven hundred thousand dollars,
invested in safe and sound securities,
yielding. an annual income in excess of
twenty-five thousand dollars; that prior
to the receipt of said gift the relations
between her and said Edmund had al.
ways been pleasant, each striving and
working for the benefit of each other and
their young family; but after such gift
the manner Of said Edmund towards her
wholly changed, and without any cause
therefor he neglected her, and on July
2. 1889, he deserted her, and has ever
since and now continues to live apart
from her; thattof all this vast estate re-
ceived Ly him as aforesaid, the only part
thereof which she has received is the
conveyance of a small farm which cost
$3.50, and life lease in another small
parcel of real estate which cost S170O;
and all that said children have received
is conveyance Of the fee in the real es-
tate leased to her as aforesaid; and all
the balance Of said real estate and the
large annual income thereof, except
meager part used for the su bsistence of
herself and her said children, the said
E lmund has used and expended wholly
for his own purposes, and has disposed
of large amounts of safe ana productive
securities and invested the proceeds in
uncertain, speculative and worthless
property, both real and personal. and so
recklessly and improvidently managed
his large estate that your oratrix is in
formed and believes, and therefore al
leges, that ne has wasted and lost a
very large portion of it, and has also in
addition incurred large debts and liza
bilities, the amount of which is I'M
known to her.
The bill then goes on to relate that
on June ~, 1894, for the alleged pur-
pose of securing the payment of such
debts and liabilities and of saving cost
and expense" etc., Mr.. Mallet made a
tripartite assignment in the usual form
for the general benefit of his creditors, of
all his real and personal estate not ex-
empt from attachment, to Messrs. Sym
onds and Cook. This assignment. which
was never executed by parties of the third
part, was duly recorded, and i'm mediate
ly after Messrs. Symonds and Cook took
possession of all Mr.. Mallet's real and per-
sonal estate in; Maine, which estate, Mrs.
Mallet believes and alleges was more
than sufficient to pay all the existing
debts and Liabilities of Ng. Mallet, and
all costs and expenses q the assignment
and leave property exceeding $3.50. 600 in
\ vs. |IzSsN NJ
W ~