The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-07-23
KANSAS NEWS.
Wichita Woman the Victim ola
Mock Marriage.
Was the Widow Of Henry C.
Main, an Old Soldier.
HAS A PENSION COMING
G. NJ. Durham Had False
Ceremony Performed.
Both License and Pastor Were
Counterfeit Brand.

Wichita, July 23.-Was Mrs Eliza
beth NJ. Durham made the victim of
a mock ceremony when she married,
or thought she married c. NJ. Durham,
in Hutchinson, Kan, July 16, 1883?
Such is the allegation she makes in
a petition filed in the district court
in which she seeks to set aside the
fraudulent marriage contract"
If she succeeds in establishing this
fact she will receive over $500 in back
pension. Her first husband, Henry c.
Main, was an old soldier of the Union
army.
Mr.. and Mrs. Durham have been
separated for the past IA years, or
since the date when she first discov-
cred the fraud that had been prac-
ticed upon her.
About three months ago Mrs. Dun
ham read the account of the wesley
case in which Mrs. Wesley had her
previous widows pension restored by
procuring a divorce from her second
husband, who had abandoned her.
Thinking that she could have her pen
sion restored Mrs. Durham applied to
Mrs Shields for advice. Shortly at
terward she filed suit for divorce in
the district court but upon closer in
vestigation of her case Mrs Shields
discovered or learned the true facts
IN the case and the original action
for divorce was dismissed yesterday
morning in the district court. 1t now
remains for Mrs Durham to prove
the statement made in yesterdays pc
tition. When she establishes the fact
of the mock marriage she will re-
ceive the widows pension dating from
the time of the supposed marriage with
Durham.
In the petition filed by her attorneys,
Stanley and Stanley. the plaintiff states
that on July 16, 1889, the defendant
took her to Hutchinson. Kan, for the
alleged purpose of entering into a mar
riage contract with her. She declares
that on their arrival at Hutchinson
the defendant informed her that he
would go and procure the necessary
license and also get a minister to per-
form the ceremony between them.
The plaintiff states that shortly af-
ter he returned saying that he had
procured the necessary license. and
he was also accompanied by a man
whom he introduced as L. r. Smith
and who purported to be a minister
of the gospel and duly authorized to
perform the marriage contract. The
plaintiff further alleges that thereupon
believing that the defendant had pro-
cured a lawful marriage license, and
that the said L. r. Smith was an
authorized minister. she consented TO
marry the defendant was as she
believed at that time. duly and legally
married e. go
The plaintiff declares that after the
above described transaction took place
she and the defendant returned to her
home in Sedgwick county and lived
lQSGIuEE d. man anu WIG OELO-
Der IS, 1890. and that during all this
time she believed herself TO be legally
married to the defendant She states
that on October 20, 1890. the defend
ant told her that no legal marriage |
between them had never taken place |
and that L. r. Smith was not a clergy
man or a person authorized to perform |
a marriage ceremony.
Upon learning these facts the plain |
tiff says that she refused to live with |
the defendant any longer and that |
they have since that date lived apart. |
She prays the court to set aside |
and render null and void the contract |
which was fraudulently obtained by |
the defendant, and to issue a decree 1
Qufeting her title and right to the prop
erty which she owned before the fraud |
ulent contract was entered into. She |
also asks that the defendant be for |
ever barred from any interest what |
ever in the property.
AHadavits have been secured from l
the probate court in Reno county to /
the effect that no marriage license has /
ever been issued by the court to par
ties by the name of Durham and 1
further that no marriage ceremony has /
ever been performed in that county 1
by a man named L. r. Smith. Search !
in the Sedgwick county records shows |
the same fact and there is little doubt |
but that L. R. Smith was only a /
pseudo-clergyman, and the allegation |
in the above petition is true. In this /
event Mrs. Durham has no legal right
to the name but is Mrs. Elizabeth /
Main, the widow of Henry c. Main, and |
as. such. entitled to the pension.