St. Paul daily globe., 1896-03-04
OF COMMODORE N. w. KITTSON
JUDGE EGAE DECIDES THAT THE
WOMAN,S CLAIM Is NOT
VALID.
OF INTEREST.
Some InterestiRg, History Brought
Out In the Trial of the
Case.

clslon set aside by the supreme court.
Judge Egan filed his decision in the
case yesterday. the hearing having
been had before him some time ago.
In it he sustains the finding of the
probate court, which denied the petit
ton of the so-called wife for a share in
the estate. The case contains many,
thlngs or sensational nature in con-
nectlon with the early life of Norman
w. hlttson. In the memorandum at
tached to his decision, the court goes
into the history of the case to some
extent, though not to the extent of
making apparent all the sensational
features of the case Following is the
memorandum:
Norman w. Kittson was born in Sorel.
province OF Quebec, in the year 1874 He be-
came zane empioyed by the American Fur COM
Pa1y, engaged in the purchase of furs from
INDIANS IN the Northwest. He was sixteen
years Oh age when he arrived at Mackinac,
MICH, ana engaged in the fur business.
IT is alleged that he was married to Mar
garet Robinson, the petitioner, a halfbreed,
on May To- 1888. The evidence disclosed some
relations between the parties. The young
woman to whom it was alleged he was mar
ried resided at the residence and cohabited
with John 6. Kittson, brother of Norman,
child. S'
"The evidence in relation to the alleged
marriage is as follows A large number of
witnesses - not speaking the English Ian
guage. put testifying through interpreters
say that they sawaNorman w. Kittson and
heard him called 'Oh-ni-pe he kas-sah' and
some OF them had seen him enter church.
Two witnesses testify as to the alleged mar
r1age. All of the rest Of the witnesses for
the petitioner testify as to the names that
Norman w. Kittson and the petitioner bore,
and as to the facts and circumstances dis
closed by the evidence.
Norman w. Kittsen left the country Of
the Fox and Wisconsin rivers in 1892 and
the petitioner some time later went to reside
with John G. Klttson, a brother Of Norman
w. Kittson, and, there resided until child
was born unto her: The child was known
as Sarah Kittson! She resided with John G..
Kittson for some two years, when another
child was born to herr while they so resided
and cohabited together, whom they named
Alex Kittson. Norman w. Kittson, the al
legged husband, as made apparent by the
testimony, arrived in Minnesota in 1888 or
1884, coming via Prairie du Chen up the
Mississippi river TO Fort Smelling, where
he met H. H. Sibiey.A
''The age of the alleged petitioner is un-
certain. After two children were born to
Margaret Kittson, as aforesaid, while CO.
habiting with John G. Kittson, she lived
with one Dixon, by whom she had two chill.
dren. She subsequently separated with SAID
Chauncey Baker, by whom she had one child.
Then, separating from said Baker, she went
to live with Norman WILDER, with whom
she is now and for twenty years mas peen
living There is other testimony In the case
relative to an alleged marriage with one
Peepek subsequent to the alleged klttson
marriage. ,,.o,,
Norman W. Kittson operated, the c1rcum-
stances under which the alleged marriage is
supposed to have taken place; the time OF ms
arrival at Mendoza, 1888 or 1884; the presumed
age Of the petitioner at that time-who was
then and now is holding tribal relations watn
the Menominee Misunderstanding out certain
testimony of other parties, which deem un.
worthy TO consider to wit, the receiving OF
money by letter-the fact of the .self-assumeo
and voluntary dissolution of whatever relation
had existed between her and Norman w. k1tt-
son: the birth of children by marital relauOns
with others; the total severance OF any tie be-
tween them subsequent to his arrival In Min
nesota; the fact of his, Norman W. Kfttsons,
subsequent marriages; her alliances as mere
tofore alluded to, and the lapse of sixty-one
years before her assertion Of any claim to De
the wife of Norman w. Kittson; coupled win
the fact that the child Sarah, alleged TO be tne
claimed and recognized said John e. k1ttson
to be her father, and the other fact that NOR
man w. Kittson, having resided IN the state
of Minnesota from 1884 to the time or his de-
cease-which took place in 18S8-had acquired
large wealth; and at this late day this petit
toner, now residing upon reservation, Tor
the first time in this long interval OF years
seeks to assert her rights as wife, compel me
to find in view of the sacred relations OF hus-
band and wife, that there was no real mar
riage contract.
9At this late day. to recognize such rela-
ton contracted as stated aforesaid, taking
into consideration the youth of the parties, the
different races from which they sprung, ana an
the surroundings, and considering the highest
morals-that should and ordinarily do-sur-
round a marriage, the court holds that there
was no marriage between the parties. such as
should be recognized in a court OF justice.
THE worlds history is full of temporary al
liances, strange abodes, strange countries
and to call such relations as existed In this
case a deliberate, intellectual contract be-
tween the parties a marriage that Is binding,
especially in view of the fact that both parties
by their acts and conduct, severed the tie,
the petitioner contracting marriage and Nor
man w. Kittson contracting marriage with
others, both bearing children by such mar
riages-I hold that the alleged marriage be-
tween Norman w. ,Kittson and the petitioner
was not such a-marriage as Is recognized by
Christian nations.n
BEGUN IN APRIL. 1894.
This action was begun in April, 1894 and
has been running ever since. Daniel Murphy,
the attorney for the defendants, secured the
depostions of over fifty witnesses, and the
testimony covers 9D0 typewriter pages. The
amount involved would be s., SOC, 900 worth Of
real estate, of which the plaintiff would be en-
titled to one-thirds and also $4,000, which Is
ne-third of the rents and profits accruing to
the estate since the death Of Commodore Kit
son. The history Of the case is as interesting
Norman w. Kittson died on May 10, 1888.
His estate has been in probate ever since. In
the early part Of 1894 six years after his death,
the executor Of the Kittson estate received a
letter purporting to come from Margaret Kilt
son, written by her granddaughter at her
mothers dictation, In which 1t was claimed
that Margaret and Norman W. Kittson mar
ried in 1912 at Appleton, Wis. and that she had
two children by Norman w. Kittson. Margaret
Kittson had a certificate Of a marriage, issued
by Father Van der Brock, which, on its face,
showed that the alleged marriage took place
at Little Chute, instead OF Appleton. 1t was to
show that this certificate was fraudulent that
the attorney for the defense began his work.
Not only this, but the defense proved or
submitted testimony to prove, first, that Mar
garet Kittson never saw Norman w. Kittson;
second. that at the time of the alleged mar
riage Margaret Kittson was not more than
ten years of age, Norman W. Kittson being
nineteen; third, that Norman w. Kittson was
at Prairie du Chien a clerk in store, during
the year 1888, which was afterwards named
as the date on which the marriage took place,
and that he was in st. Paul in 1884; fourth,
that the marriage could not have taken place
at the time stated in the alleged certificate,
for the reason that there was no such place
as Little Chute at that time; there was no
church there at the time; that FIR Van Der
Brock was not in Wisconsin, nor in that
part of the country at that time, but was
resident of Somerset o., at the time of the
alleged marriage, and did not arrive in Green
Bay until 1884. which was shown by the rec
ords of the parish at Somerset fifth, that the
witnesses fer the petitioner never saw Nor.
man w. Kittson; sixth. that the petitioner
shifted the time Of the marriage from 1912 to
1888. and from 1S33i4to 1924; seventh that the
alleged certificate OF marriage has been shown
to be fraud; eighth. that both parties lived
inconsistent as husband and wife, and several
other reasons. %
The interesting part jof the testimony of
the entire case wasU that which related to the
certificate of marrieke. When Margaret Kilt
son was placed on the witness stand the cer-