The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-09-08
HER MARRIAGE Is VOID
PUnDY HAD A WIFE LIVING Al
THE TIME.
ONLY THREE DAYS SPENT WITH PURDY,
She States That She Never Assumed or Wer
Under His Name, and Langdon, Know
ing This, Made the Charge to
Mortify Her.

Miss Katie X. Waite late yesterday af-
ternoon filed her answer in the United
States circuit court here to the petition of
Mr.. s. p. Langdon, which was printed
exclusively in the News and Observer
last Thursday. In this petition, it will be
that he alleges that she was
not Miss Waite but Mrs. Purdy and that
the deeds given to and by her as Miss
certain papers which he said were in the
possession of Mr.. Henszey and made
other requests.
The answer of Miss Katherine Il.
Waite reads about as follows, the answer
being slight Abbreviated:
/. That she excerpts to the said petit
ton as impertinent and multifariors and
in no way pertinent to the issue of the
suit, and that the petition of said Samuel
p. Langdon, so far as the same relates to
your respondent, is nothing but false,
wanton and cruel attack upon your re-
spondent for the purpose of venting the
malice of said Samuel p. Langdon upon
your respondent, in which this court can
take no jurisdiction and will not encum-
Der it's records, and your respondent
prays that said petition so far as it re-
lates to your respondent be dismissed
and stricken from the file of the court.
2. Without in any way foregoing her
right to insist upon the exception above,
this respondent answering says that at
the time of the execution of the deeds
to the Egypt Coal Company, referred to
in the petition, the respondent was not
a married woman, the wife of Isaac o.
Purdy, or any other man, nor did she go
under the name of Purdy, as was known
to Langdon. The facts are that on
March IA, 1886, in Camden, n. j., she
went through the form of marriage with
Isaac 0. Purdy, which at the time she
believed to be a valid and binding COR
tract, not knowing that Purdy ut that
time was already married. Three days
after Purdy abandoned and separated
from respondent, and then she learned
he was then and is now living with an
other woman from whom he has never
been divorced. The respondent never saw
or heard from him again until 1889, when
he came to see her in her home at Will
mington, Del She never assumed or went
under his name-as Langdon knew-and
for the purpose of wounding and mortify-
ing your respondent he made his false al
legations in the petition set forth.
3. That as appears from the above
statement of your respondent it is i'm
possible that in her execution of the
deeds Of the Egypt Coal Company above
referred to, she could have been capa-
BILE of fraud, and she absolutely denies,
|superfuous as such denial will appear,
that there was any fraud on her part in
connection with the said matter; that no
consideration except a nominal one, ever
passed to your respondent for the exc
|cution of the said deeds and that her title
in said lots was always subject to the
mortgage to the Guarantee Trust and
Deposit Company to secure the mortgage
|of $4,000 and that the allegation in said
petition that your respondent was re-
ceiving the price of the land without
conveying any title therefor is abso-
lutely false, is was well known to the pc
titioner. The respondent never made any
claim to said lots so as aforesaid con-
veyed by her, and does not now make any
such claim, but assented, in common with
the said petitioner and all other parties to
which was passed by the court on June
3, hereinbefore mentioned, by which the
title Of all the parties, plaintiffs, defend
ants and claimants in said suit is finally
adjudicated by this court. The remainder
of the petition, the respondent says, is to
cast suspicion or doubt upon the title, so
as to prevent purchasers at the sale
thereof to give full value.
4. That in regard to allegations in No.
81 of said petition the petitioner Uang
dom does not dare for fear of punish
ment for perjury deny that he executed
the conveyance in said article, yet he en-
deavors to cast a doubt upon said act of
said company for the purpose of indirect
ly injuring her title to said property which
was in no wise included in the deed of
sale, but admitted to the respondent.
She alleges that said Langdon actually
signed said deed as the president of the
Langdon-H enszey Coal Mining Company
and was well aware that it was made to
her for the full and actual consideration
of 5000 in money, which was due to her
from said ang1on-Henszey Coal Mining
Company for her salary of 500 per
month, which said Langdon himself, as
president, had agreed to pay, and your
respondent is ready and willing at any
time to exhibit to this court the said
deed so as aforesaid signed by the said
Langdon, and your respondent has not
in her possession any deeds of the prom
Ierey belonging to the said defendant com
panies, or any of them, or the said mort
Igagees or to any persons whatsoever, ex-
cept the deed to herself as aforesaid. as
is intimated or charged in the said 2na
article of the petition.
The above is almost the exact wording
of the reply to Mr.. S. p. Langdon's petit
ton as signed by Miss Katherine Waite
and sworn to before Mr. Cameron f. Nc
Rae, notary public.
Mr.. and Mrs. d. l.. Hamilton return