The sun., 1901-08-11
ONLY OIE IRS, YHIfRLBGaR.



Rsssrss nuin Out TIVE Ansrsesa Wsssws
and Dedores the knginsh Wudew. Whe
Was uss PlrSt Wlfs. - Be ss,ely En-
sitsed 70 the Amesiean nsai Estate.
There could have been few psrsons who
were familiar with Lawyer James H. White
legse, largo In form and bone. and known
about our courts for many years, who
knew that one Of the hardest legal nuts
under his gray locks was to ascsstsin where
he stood In . matrimonial way. He was
sedate and old-fashioned In appearance
and manner, and be seemed to be bent
on his legal work alone. He got enough
OF that 70 be rated ct one time ct about
100000. A scramble for the realty he
left showed that he was patriarchsl enough
for Utah. When he died on July 70, 1890.
three women took TO widows weeds. each
Of whom had o6spring asoribed To him.
Whitelegge had tried TO clear up his
domestic atmosphere In 1893 by suing to
annul q marriage he admitted he oon-
tracted with Marietta Losier in 1893. He
bad three children by her, named Albert
7. =. whiteleggs. Edith NJ. whitslegge and
Mrs. Henrietta Duffy. whose status - to
legitimacy he asked the courts to AZ In
that action. They had resided with him
for . number Of years in the house 2Aes
Tiebout avenue. Fordham, which be owned.
He said never . word about Q prior mar
rage on his part In that action, but sued
on the ground that Mrs. Lozier was not
competent to marry at the time, because
she was not divorced from Abraham A.
Loxier, whom she had married at Franklin
N. j.. on May .. 1858. She had obtained
q divorce from Lozier on Oct. 20, 1885, but
Whitelegge declared that his common
law marriage TO her took place earlier In
tho year iSoo Mrs. Lozier asserted that
her divorce. This Mrs. Whlteleggs, or
Loxier. did not know OF his prior marriage
q. the time OF the suit he brought against
her. She asserted that Whitelegge had been
her legal adviser In her suit against Lozier
and knew all about her marriage to Lozier.
Ignoring this annulment suit, except to
against Whitelegge for absolute divorce,
declaring that he was guilty with his type
writer, whom he had taken on three trips
to Europe and then installed In his cottage
at Fordham. Whitelegge denied intimacy
with the typewriter. These suits seem
to have been still pending at the time Of
the death Of Whitelegge, so that he died
stood with this woman
A hunt for his possessions after his death
showed that besides the Fordham house.
he also owned l3l East 104th street, 433
East i23d street, and 5i2 East l2lst street
No search was required to find claimants
for his estate, but to the general surprise
Of those who knew Whitelegge in this city
there appeared Prudence Whitelegge. who
said she was his widow and had two chill
dren by him. Prudence Whitelegge and
one OF her children were then residing in
England This family have been repre-
ssnted %N. in the subsequent @ iitisapsionss p,s.y by
Whitelegge averred that she had married
the lawyer in England on Nov. S. is4s,
and that their children are: Margaretha
E. E. Shumay, wife OF Henry c. Shumay,
residing at the time Of her fathers death
At 80 Clinton avenue, Jersey City, and
Thomas. Edward whitelegge residing in
Then .came the oratrix.' Lulu D. White
legge and declared that she was the only
living widow Of the decedent Whitelegge
and that her son, william Henry Whitelegge.
is his only child; This boy e about years
Sd .I Lulu .Ss whs'sfs e %ssss RSss ne jans Sns
20, 1895, at Niagara Falls on the Canada
side. She and her son were residing In
Ae0 Tiebout avenue, Fordham, at the time
Of the death OF Whitelegge. Marietta
Whitelegge resides with two OF her chill
dren at 800 Monastery street, West Hoboken.
A merry race among the three women
and separate sets Of children with lawyers
employed all around began soon after
the death Of the aged lawyer. The differ
ent cases which were brought came up
before Justice 0Gorman last January
for trial. but all hands agreed to have the
claims tried out together before a referee
who should make report tantamount
to judgment. Justice O'Gorman named
Edward J. Mcclure as referee.
Referee Mcclure has reported that
Whitelegge married Prudence Whitelegge
on Nov. S, is4s and that this marriage
has never been dissolved 1t Ia found
that she is entitled TO dover in the four
parcels OF realty in suit and that the fee
Of this realty Is In her children, Mrs. Mar
Raretta E, E, Shumay and Thomas Edward