The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-10-11

decedent u the
You may say stated ATTORNEY
Jones, that there can be no ouestio,,
InaI Mrs. Hilton is the surviving widow
u II Fark- There was a narriaere
DetWeen Lr. Park and Miss Armitage
Out no legal separation. Just now I am
not prepared to say that the win is in
EdHu' nor DC L say that it is valid. II
10 my expectation to have the DaDars
prepared for filing a contest in cOIIrt
tomorrow, but IL may be until next dav
before the papers are filed.
The fact that there was no uoarrfse,.
law n Utah before the year 1S2S docs
not subject Mrs. Hilton TO any legal or
marital dlsa abilities. in that the law
recognizes as valid any marriage IN
uerlaken IN good faith, when, as in the
case at hand, the wife of DR. Park be-
IleVed that her leaving Of her husband
constituted a separation. Mrs. Hilton
IS Q most eStimabIe woman. and her
father. the late Professor Armitage is
Well remembered as the great artist Of
former days in this CITY. NaturaIIv
she feels the embarrassment incident
10 commencing a contest over the will
OF neF late former husband -
Half Of Estate Claimed.
Should Mrs. Hilton be successful in
her contest suit. she Will at least ba
awarded half of the estate for her
claim, or about $4,000, as the widow
and heir OF Dr. Park
II now develops that instead of the
brother and sister of DR.. Park who
reside in Ohio, being wealthy in their
own right, it is related as a fact that
not long since they applied 10 the dece-
dent Tor a loan TO tide them over some
financial misfOrtuneS, but the doctor
pleaded poverty as a reason for his re-
greet IN nO~ granting the favor. Whether
they viii Join in the contest is NOT
known, but it is said that the chances
OF the OHIO relatives breaking the will
are not nearly so good as those which
VIII follow Mrs HiltOn's movements in
court.
DR.. Park Kept the Secret.
As # expecting a contest from his
former foster children, DR.. Park speci-
fed in his Will the intention of exclud-
ing them from participation in his eS-
tate He named John Held, HOrtense
h ROylanCe, Eliza LOeSer and GOttlief
Ashbacher as specially not entitled to
he IA Sse Gst2S us he5fS, but DO mention
was made IN The VIII OF mis- having LETT
a surviving wife It is said that the
doctor did not mention his marital
status to his attorney in having the
viii drawn last July, nor did Mr.. Stew
art, one of his most intimate friends,
know that he had ever been married
There viii probably be no contest on
t--e DAL 1 u INC Ao7tGl OLi4AuI Gil u IL
Park named in the will for a diStTibu-
tive share of his estate. for the very
good reason that they had never been
legally adopted by their guardian and
benefactOr.
There IS little doubt that this Will
contest case Will be one of the most
celebrated of any that have been tried
in the Utah courts, Outrivaling the con-
tested case over the will of the late DR..
William H. Groves. The circumstances
of the two cases are quite similar, and
in the Groves case the contestant was
awarded a large sum by way Of COM
promise.
The hearing on the petition of Sam
ueI W. Stewart for the admission of the
will of Dr. Park to probate is sched-
uIed for Oct. 20, before Judge Hiles,
but it is not likely that the issues in
the contest viii be ready for trial at
that time.