The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-07-16
ORDERED TO PAY IT
JUDGE WILLRICH INSTRUCTS ED
WARD VANISH TO HAND OVER
$500
TO MRS. EMMA MERRITT FISH.
SOME INSIDE HISTORY ABOUT THE,
ADMINISTRATION OF AN
ESTATE.
TO MRS. EMMA MERRITT FISH,
WASN'T CLOSED WITH a RUSH
Freeman Il. Lane Futs the West
Side Banker on Sptt-The
Story in Detail.

Edward Vanish appeared before the
probate court yesterday afternoon IN
obedience to an order requiring him
TO show cause why he should not, as
administrator of the estate of Joseph
Merritt Fish, be compelled to pay over
TO Emma Merritt Fish, the widow OF
the intestate, the sum OF SSO6.t4, held
by him as administrator. In the course
of a hearing that lasted until almost .
o'clock. Mr.. Vanish was unable to
show cause as requested, and the court
accordingly ordered him to turn over
the money to the widow.
The testimony in the case developed
an interesting story, besides revealing
a state of facts.
Emma Merritt Fish is the widow OF
Joseph Merritt Fish, who died in Chi
cage Sept s, 1898. Mr.. Fish died in
testate, leaving a personal estate, con-
sisting Chiefly of his wearing apparel,
valued at $50, and some notes and obll-
cations, on which Mr.. Vanish, who was
appointed administrator, realized $SO9.-
90 The widow of Mr.. Fish was not
his first wife, and thereby hangs a
tale. Several years ago Mr.. Fish ana
his first wife, Olive Fish, who resided
in Minnesota became involved in do
nestle difficulties, which eliminated In
a divorce obtained by the wife, who
was also awarded permanent alimony
in the sum of 5000 a year. Mr.. Fish
became so disguised with life in these
quarters, that he pulled up stakes,
went to Colorado and dropped ms
surname of Fish, to rid himself OK the
unpleasant reminder of the case OF
Ii, Nf-l, II1N- iJOSr
to fall back upon, he thereforth called
himself Joseph Merritt. Along in the
latter half Of the eighties, Mr.. Merritt
took up his abode in Chicago, where
he met Mrs. Emma Braun, widow.
In April, 1888 he married Mrs. Braun
at Kenosha, Wis. At the time Of the
marriage. Mrs. Braun knew that MIR.
Merritt's real name was Fish, as did
their mutual friend, Mrs. Julia Soper,
of Chicago.
Mr.. Fish and Mr.. Vanish were per-
sonal friends, having been engaged in
business together in st. Paul. In 1884,
Mr. Vanish gave Mr.. Fish his promis
sorry note for 81 500 for money borrowed
The note was payable in eight years.
Before his death, Mr.. Fish, so Mrs
Fish asserts. gave her this note. After
his death Mr. Vanish obtained pos
session of the note, in return for which
he gave Mrs Fish a certificate for
$1,000 worth of stock in the st. Paul
Barrel company and his personal note
for $400. Mrs. Fish now wants the ad-
miniStra tor to return the note and take
back the stock and his note for $400
And here Administrator Vanish raises
an issue.
He disputes the marriage of Mrs
Emma Braun and Joseph Merritt Fish.
AS Mr.. Vanish put it while on the wit
hess stand yesterday. Il have grave
suspicious"
The matter of the 81, 500 note properly
had no relation to the proceeding be-
fore the probate court, but Judge Will
rich, in his discretion, admitted testi-
mony concerning it as the purpose was
to inquire generally into the conduct Of
Mr.. Vanish.
Freeman P. Lane, of Minneapolis, the
attorney for Mrs. Fish, called Mr.. Yam
ish to the stand and put that gentle
man through a rigid cross-eXamind-
ton concerning his disposition of the
SS099 cash that had come into his
hands as administrator.
Mr.. Vanish in answer to Mr.. Lane's
first questions concerning his receipt
of the papers and notes of the deceased
from the widow, said that he did not
know her as Mrs. Fish, but as Mrs.
Braun at the time of Mr.. Fish's death.
Mr.. Lane thereupon offered in evidence
the receipt for the papers and notes
made out to Mrs. Fish and signed by
Mr.. Vanish.
Questioned then as to the eXpendi-
lures he had made, Mr.. Vanish recited
them from memory, not having brought
his books into court, because, as he eX-
planned, he did not think they would be
needed. Attorney Lane scored him for
this omission. and proceeded with the
examination. Mr.. Vanish enumerated
all his expenditures, including the
finn Iii t6t n
of about 1927. Of this amount some $50
were expended for attorneys fees, and
about $50 for a subsequent trip to Chi
cagO and one to Milwaukee made by
MI. Vanish, as he explained, to ascer~
tain whether Mr. Fish left any prop
erty in either Of those cities. Mr.. Yam
ish called on the Fort Dearborn Ma
tionaI bank in Chicago and on the First
National Bank of Milwaukee.
Couldn't you have made your in
Quiries by mail?" asked Mr.. Lane.
Mr.. Vanish admitted that he might
have written, but thought it cheaper to
go in person.
for trip to Chicago and another to
milwaukee, to talk to the Fort Dear
born and the First National bank, eh?'
Mr. Vanish did not answer. Refer
ring again to his suspicious that Mrs.
Fish was not Mrs Fish, Mr. Vanish,
under cross examination, said:
Il had reason to believe at one time
that she was the widow of Mr.. Fish.
and since then 1 have had reason to
doubt it,
Yes, no doubt, since she has propos-
ed to make you turn over that 81. 500
note. Now what have you done. Mr..
Vanish, with the balance of that $500 90
belonging TO this estate?'
Il kept the money with the st. Paul
Barrel company"
"Oh, you did. But it's credited to e.
Vanish isn't it?"
yes, sir"
But the ST. Paul Barrel company
knows you are the administrator of the
Fish estate, because you are an officer
of the barrel company, isn't that SO %
Yes, sir
Nov, you were appointed admins
traitor of the estate in Jan, 1894 and
you collected the entire assets, $500. 90
in April, 1894. Why did you take ali
summer and part Of the fall to pay the
funeral expenses?"
Il was in some doubt whether ]
should pay it over"
In doubt? Perhaps you will tell the