Arizona republican., 1903-05-15
IRVINE vs. IRVINE
The Civil Phase of This Very Sensa.
 tional Case.

|
 Irvine against Edward Irvine. Izora
 Irvine and Joseph Irvine was begun in
 district court yesterday. This is an other phase of one of the most sensa- | tional actions ever brought in this
 county and very few more sensational
 have ever been brought anywhere. ! Mary Annette Irvine. the plaintiff. is
 suing her husband. L lward Irvine, for { a divorce and ar equitable division of
 S25c. eco worth Of valuable real estate
 situated in Phoenix. Joseph Irvine and IZora Irvine are joined as defendants,
 upon the allegation that they are the { fraudulent grantees of practically all the property of Edward Irvine. pursu-
 ant to a conspiracy entered into years ago to defraud the wife of her ocIn-
 munity interest in the husbands property.
 Mary Annetta Irvine was married to Edward Irvine. widower, at FairviIle. New Brunswick. in 1867. They lived to-
 gethcr for nearly two years and had two children. Shortly before the birth of his second child. without notice or difficulty with the yo2ng mother. and accompanied by his son, Joseph Irvine by a former marriage. Edward Irvine abandoned his home and family and came to Phoenix after having resided for some time in California. The wife heard no word from him fer seven years.
 Meantime Edward Irvine prospered at Phoenix and acquired valuable prop erty at his new home. He became prominent in church work. and no one knew he was married. Tn 1880 he mar ria l, has reared a family Of eight children.
 In 1SS7 he returned to New Brunswick and visited his two children and his first or rather his second wife. and shortly afterward induced his son and later his daughter to come to Phoenix with him.
 Here for several years they were sup posed 10 be his nephew and neice. They eventually sent for their mother. Mary Annetta Irvine. who joined them about 1895. The New BruRswick wife was not an advocate of secrecy: IT is probable that the facts became public through her discussion o; the subject: at any rate Edward Irvine left home for sev- eral months. and the local papers ad- vertised the situation extensively. | However. he returned to his last wife | and his last family, and filed an action for divorce against his wife. Mary | Annetta. charging her with desertion ! This suit he afterWard dismissed and | ii never came to trial.
 Meanwhile Irvine had never sought | the society of his second wife but con tinued to live openly with his last wife, ! IZora Irvine, and her children. This ! situation continued until the United | States grand jury indicted him and | tried him for unlawful coha abitafion l under the well known act of congress for the suppression oi rolygamy in the territories.
 This occurred nearly six years ago | and after Irvine had lived at Phoenix | over thirty years. He was prominent 1 in the business and social world of ! Phoenix, devout Methodist and a well | known factor in every progressive en- terplise in Salt River valley. His con- ! duct Tor years had been eXamplary. and | many of his associates refused to credit | the accusation against him.
 He was defeEded by the ablest coun- Sel in Arizona who pleaded with the | jury not to return a verdict of guilty for the sake of Izora Irvine and her children who were at his side curing | the trial. Said one of his attorneys: Gentlemen, do not by your verdict, place the stamp of ilegitimacy on these innocent children"
 All of these facts became public prop erty in that trial. but Edward Irvine | was acquitted. He and Izora Irvine continued to live in their large brick residence on the east side of Phoenix, while Mary Annetta and. her son and | daughter live in a modest home south of town.
 At the time of the trial Edward IT, II vine frankly admitted both marriages, II claiming as justification for his second ' marriage that some one had told him his first wife was dead.
 Phoenix people are accustomed to Il speak of Mrs. Irvine No 1 and Mrs. | Irvine No. ?, although his son Joseph f is his son by his first wife. who oieG while Irvine was a young man.
 Edward Irvine Is a man over seventy years of age, and Joseph is nearing fifty. With the exception of the extra ordinary complication of domestic re- lations in which they are an involved, all are estimable people, respected, and prominent in business and church cir cles.
 In the last phase Of the matter, the Sull oI MaTy AInelta TOT a dlNorce, receivership md division of the proper ty, it is charged that all the transfers made 10 the last wife and to the son Joseph are with the sole intention of defrauding her of her community inter est therein. In one paragraph of the complaint it is recited that the eX- pressed consideration for a certain deed from Edward Irvine to Izora Irvine is love and affection, and that if the actu- al consideration as expressed in that