The evening times., 1899-09-18

Assistant Secretary of the Interior Web
ster Davis has just handed down decis-
ion on a case that is remarkable as show
ing TO what ends some widows and for
mer widows of soldiers will sometimes go
to secure pension.
Mary p. Vaughn, as a widow, appealed
from the decision of the Commissioner of
Pensions refusing to restore her name to
the pension rolls. The claimant was pen
stoned up 10 January 4, 1870, when she was
remarked to one Patten, and the pension
was then continued to the minor children
until they became sixteen years of age. In
1890, she applied to be restored to the rolls
claiming that her marriage to Patton was
void because at the time he had a former
wife living from whom he had not been
divorced, and to sustain her allegation she
filed decree OF court in an ex parte
proceeding nuilifying the marriage.
1t was held by the department that as
the Government was not party to the
nullity proceedings, and as it was shown
that the decree was procured by fraud, the
Government was not bound by it. As the
other evidence failed TO show the inyalidity
of the marriage in question and was insuffi-
cient to show that Patton had been pre-
Viously married, the claimants marriage
to him was held to be valid.
Assistant Secretary Davis gives the fol-
lowing interesting history of the case:
Mary j. Vaughn, or Patton, on Feb
ruary 3, 1864, filed claim for pension
as the widow of Andrew Vaughn who was
hxar. dasr; h -
of Company G, Eighth Kentucky Infantry.
and died while yet in service on June L,
1868. The claim was allowed and pension
was paid with additional pension on ac-
count of four minor childrenl up to jan
uary 4, 1870, the date of her remarTiage TO
William II. Patton, and was then contin-
ued to the children until each became six
teen years of age. On September 80, 1890,
she filed a claim for restoration of this
pension, claiming that her marriage to
Patton was invalid and void. because he
mad prior wife then living and undi-
vorced. After special examination this
claim was rejected in December, 1887, on
the ground that her remarriage was valid,
The decree OF annulment thereof. granted
in 1892 by the circuit court of Jackson
county. KY, being obtained through fraud
and therefore not binding. She filed this
appeal accordingly on March 16, 1883, con-
tending that the Government may not
question said decree of annulment, but
that il is binding upon the Government
until and unless vacated by the court
which rendered il
This contention is not sound. This de-
cree was rendered in an ex parte proceed
ing, the defendant not being served with
notice thereof ether tdan by publication
and this Governmca- not being d party
thereto in any manner. II iS well settled
that such q judgment MAY &c coliaterally
impsached for fraud or collision in its
procurement by third parties whose rights
may be affected by il. The Government
may thus contest in a pension claim the
validity OF a decree Of a State court in a
nullity proceeding
In this case II appears the nullity pro-
ceeding was instituted by the claimant in
1891, while her claim for restoration of
pension was pending. Five witness tes-
titled only by written depositions. One of
them testified en- special examination that
he had 10 information except what he OBJ
tanned from the claimant Another says
he knows nothing of a former wife OF Pat
ten. Another, who had deposed in the null
ity proc -eGilg that lie had known Patton
when he WIS living with another woman
as his WIZ testified on special examina-
AAOu bAdl AAN uGN6- ilICN OI uCdIN Oh rat
ton living with or being married to any
other woman than the claimant
1t would appear that Patton's where
abcuts while the nullity suit was still
pending was known to claimant although
she denies it, and it would SEEM that fact
being known, that he should have been
personally notified of the suit. He testi-
fies here, however. that he had no knowl-
edge whatever of it, and that he was
never married before he married Mrs.
Vaughn. He testified also that he left Ter
in 1850 because of her disreputable char
acter, and that she was for years a woman
of bad reputation is shown in this testi-
mony. She lived with Patton for several
years before they were married, and be-
fore and since their marriage was consid-
cred of bad character.
The testimony in the nullity proceed
ing upon which the decree was based is
manifestly insufficient to warrant any such
decree and so grossly inadequate that the
decree must be looked upon as the result
of an imposition upon the court and as
fraudulently and unconscionably procured.
1t can have. therefore, no standing in this
case as evidence. The validity of claim
ants marriage to Patton is fully establish
ed, and the rejection Of her claim for res