The herald., 1898-01-10
Curious Developments In
the Creede Will Case
MARK 1. WHITES DEPOSITION
CONFESSES TO ATTEMPTING TO
BLACKMAIL BOTH SIDES
George s. vandever Also Explains
How He Lost the Wife Who At
forwards Became Mrs. Creede

The contest over the will Of the late
Nicholas c. Creede. and the side issues
arising out of it, gather interest as time
passes.
In the first instance the entire matter
appeared to be simplicity itself, but in
this. as in other cases before the courts,
the lawyers can be trusted to complicate
the issues, and befog the intelligence Of
anyone attempting to follow the devious
windings of lawsuit.
In saying this, however, 1t is not in the
way of any reflection upon the legal fra
ternity, but simply that It falls within
their line Of duty to open the door of the
closet where the family skeleton is pack
ed away, and expose 1t to the public.
When, as In the Creede case, some of the
most astute lawyers have been retained
by the several parties to the suit, to
represent their conflicting interests 1t
was only to be expected that there
would be a rafting of dead bones--and
possibly live ones, too.
A couple of days ago depositions of
certain witnesses, taken in the east,
were received and filed with the other
papers in the case In the superior court.
The first in Importance is that of Mark
L. White, a brother-in-law of Mrs.
Creede, who, upon his own showing, is q
very striking example of an uncultured
and straightforward scoundrel. The
deposition of George s. Vandever Is also
of great interest, for reasons to appear
later, and the third, that of Mark
Whites son, being merely corroborative,
is from the public standpoint Of minor
Importance and interest.
THE MARRIAGE DENIED
When the proceedings were first begun
something closely approaching to SEN
sation was caused when Henry T. Gage,
associated with Jones 7. Jones in defend
ing the interests of the estate in which
Mr.. Phifer, the hrother-in-law of the
deceased mine owner, has close and d.
rect interest, rose in open court and
asked leave to amend their answer to the
complaint. Mr.. Gage stated in the doc
ument they had filed they had conceded
the marriage of the deceased Creede to
Nancy L. Creede. and they desired leave
to amend that since they conceded moth
AAAes O- eAtS hAio Ootg Oll LHc JULIET mana,
denied it. Up to that point outsiders had
considered that the defenders of the will
would contest Mrs. Creedes claim to
a share of the estate on the ground that
she had assigned away all her rights to
her husband in consideration of lump
sum, and as 1t was generally understood
that no denial would be made that an as
signment of interest had since been mads
that in itself seemed a good cause of de-
fense. But the attorneys for the estate,
1t now appears, were not taking any
chances nor losing any points and so the
denial of Creede's marriage was set up
and the public onlookers at once became
more interested II not altogether more
edited. 1t is 30 delightfully."- soothing to
individual vanity to have the peccadil-
loes of others exposed that any wrong is
condemned with a camplacent stroking
down of ones own feathers.
Shortly afterwards Mrs. Creede's dep
osition. was taken and all the facts in
connection with her varied matrimonial
experiences were fully exploited. Partic-
ularly was she asked with regard to her
first marriage with G. 8. Vandever, and
whether she knew that he was still alive
and for how long she had been aware
of the fact All Of these and many other
questions Mrs. Creede answered and
confessed that she had never instituted
proceedings for divorce against Van
dever.
During this examination Of Mrs.
Creede counsel received inspiration for
his questions from a letter which he held
in his hand, and to which he frequently
referred. Some days later a motion was
made in Judge Clark's department for
a continuance of the case on the ground
that new evidence had been discovered.
1t was represented that until Mrs.
Creede' deposition was taken the de-
fense had no knowledge of vandever.
A SCHEMING SCOUNDREL
With these facts in mind, perusal of
the deposition of Mark l.. White is of
curious interest. His testimony was, in
substance. to the effect that he had
known Mrs Creede since 1858, and that
she visited his house in White county,
Ark, just before she married Nicholas
Creede in March, 1898. At that time he
had some conversation with her about
@. s. Vandever, q brother of the latter
being mail carrier thereabouts, and an
allusion to the fact brought about the
conversation. What actually transpired
then, and the actual schemes that were
afterwards working in the brain of the
astute brother-in-law of Mrs. Creede is
best shown by what he stated when his
deposition was taken, on cross -examina-
tion.
In summarized form it was somewhat
as follows:
81 am married to Mrs. Creede's sister
and resided in Mississippi during the
spring and summer of 1897. made a
proposition to one Of Mrs. Creede's at
torneys that / would keep G. s. VAN
dever off the witness stand all the time
for $4,000. / afterward made another
proposition that would keep Vandever
off the stand until after the first trial
for $150. Neither of these propositions
was accepted by Mrs. Creede. If the
$4,000 proposition had been accepted, /
was to have had half of 1t and Van
dever the other half He authorized me
to make any terms I pleased, and did
not know what figure 1 was going to
make He agreed that whatever I did
would be all right. had not at that
time paid out $100, although told Mrs
Creede's attorney that had, but was
not under oath then, and what said
was not true.
when moved back to Tennessee, in
September, 1897. wrote to Mrs. Creede's
attorney yet another proposition. Be-
fore the death Of Nicholas Creede re-