The Portland daily press., 1895-05-07

The equity case of Clara H. Mallet VS..
Edmund B. Malet, Jr., Joseph W. Sy-
monds and Charles Sumner Cook, his
Rssignees, came up before H R. Virgin,
ESQ.,, master in chancery, upon ref
erence of exceptions OF the defendants
to parts of the bill of the complaint, for
tmpertinence. The hearing was held
yesterday morning. The following are
the sections in tae bill of complaint to
which the defendants excepted:
CLARA ii. Mallet of Freeport. in said
county of Cum berland, plaintiff, COM
plains against Edmund B.Mallet, Jr..
OF said Freeport, and Joseph W.Symonds
and Charles Sumner Cook, both of Port
land in said county of Cumberland, de-
PENDANTS, and says that on the goth day
of March, A. D. 1877, she was lawfully
married to said Edmund B. Mallet, Jr.,
and ever since has continued to he and
now is. his lawful wife; and has had
by him five children, four of whom are
now living, and at the time OF their
said marriage the said Edmund was
possessed of very small means, and de-
pendent wholly upon his manual labor
Tor the support of himself and his fami-
ly, and SO continued until on or about
November A. d. 1884, when he received
by testamentary gift from his uncle,
Thomas Mallet, very large amount OF
personal property, exceeding in value
S700,000 invested in safe and sound Sc
curities. yielding an annual income in
excess of $4,000; that prior to the re-
ceipt of such gift the relation between
her and said Edmund had always been
pleasant, each striving and working
for the benefit of each other and their
young family; but after such gift the
of mi de bQrl
wholly changed, and without any cause
therefor, he neglected her, and has ever
since and now continues to live apart
from her;
"Ihat of all this vast estate received
by him as aforesaid, the only part there
OF which she has received is the convey
ance of small farm which cost $500,
ald the life lease of another small par
Gal of real estate which cost S1700, and
all that his said children have received
is the conveyance of the fee in the real
STATE leased to her aforesaid. and all
the balance of said real estate and the
large annual income thereof, except a
meagre part used for the subsistence
of herself and said children. the said
Edmund has used and expended wholly
for his own purposes, ,and has disposed
of a large amount of safe and productive
securities and invested the proceeds in
uncertain, speculation and worthless
property. both real and personal, and SO
reck1essly and improvidently managed
his large. estate that your oratrix is in
formed ard believes, and therefore al
leges, that he has wasted and lost very
large portion of it, ana had also in adj
dition incurred large debts and liabili-
ties, the amount of which is unknown
to herr
The plaintiff in this bill joined in a
certain mortgage copy of which is at
tached to the bill releasing right of dow
er. The bill is brought to relieve her
either wholly or in part from the effect
of such release on the ground that her
signature was fraudulently obtained by
fraudulent Misrepresentation. The bill
being of such a character the defend
ants claim that the allegations to which
they have excepted are wholly imperti-
nent, and that if they were answered
would raise false issues wholly irrelev-
ant to the relief sought in the bill, and
that their only effect Is to prejudice the
defendant, MIR. Mallet. The defendants
further claim that the allegations ex-
cepted to are plainly within the defnit-
ion of the Supreme Court Of this state,
and especially an opinion by Chief JUS
tice Peters, in which held certain aIli-
cations to be impertiuent on the ground
that they introduced matters which
would not be put in issue, and which
would only excite prejudice and feel
ing, and tend TO unnecessary delay. The
object of the exceptions, so defendants
claim, is simply to rid the bill of i'm
pertinent and irrelevant matter, in or
der that the material facts only may be
put in issue. 1t is purely legal pro-
ceding preliminary to any answer to the
bill upon its merits and involves no
question of fact.
10 which the complainant, Mrs. Clara
B. Mallet, replied through W. Edwin
Ulmer, and Gage & Strout as follows:
The said complainant objects to the
allowance of exceptions by said defend
ants to certain parts of said bill lis i'm
pertinent, and that the SAID matter al
legged to be inlpertinenG should be ex-
plunged from said bill, because:
First-The part of said bill specified in
defendants, said First Exception as
impertnent, is not impertinent, but is
pertinent to said bill.
Second-The part Of said bill specified |
In defendants said Second Exception
as lmperunenf, is nnF 1mpHftlne1t, but
is pcrtin nj to said ILL.
Thild-rhuu part of the words ex-
cepted to by said defendants as imperti-
nent in said First Exception" are not
impertinent, but are pertinent to sag
bill
Fourth-That part of the words ex-
cepted to by said defendants in said
Second Exception" as impertinent. are
not impertinent, but are pertinent to said
bill.
Fitth-That other parts Of said bill
not excepted to by said defendants as
impertineut, and which are not imper-
tinent, but are pertinent and II material
parts of said bill, are dependent upon
the words excepted to by the said defend
ants as impertinent in said First Ex-
ception," and without such words or
some part Of them, such other parts of
said bill would be unintelligihle and
without meaning or pertinency to said
bill.
Sixth-That other parts of said billTnot
excepted to by said defendants as i'm
pertinent. and which are not impertinent,
but are pertinent and material parts of
said bill, are dependent upon the words