The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-02-06
VIM. C. Nevins, of Atchison
County, Must Pay.
ESTRANGED HIS son.
Induced Him to Send Wife to
Her Home.
Xehe-MOOd will Case from
Shawnee Reversed.

court today, it will cost William C.
Nevins of Atchison county $500 for in
| terfering with his sons love affairs
"On February 13, 1901, after an ac-
quaintance of five years and q court
ship of one year, Jacob w. Nevins was
married to Ella B. Hargis,' says Chief
Justice Johnston in the courts official
opinion on the subject. "At that time
he was about 21 years old and her age
was about Is. Although they appeared
to be strongly attached to eaoh other
and the marriage gave promise of hap
piness. a separation occurred on April
?. 1901.
Very soon after the marriage his
parents manifested a marked hostility
toward Ella and she charges that her
husband became estranged from her
by the active and persistent efforts OF
William c. Nevins, her father-in-law.
She brought action against him. alleg-
ing that he wrongfully, maliciously and
for the purpose of separating her from
her husband enticed and procured him
TO become alienated in feeling and af-
fection for her by representing to his
son that Ella was unfit for his wife;
that she was trifiing and good-for-
nothing; incapable of loving him; was
| qiarrelsome, vicious and unwomanly;
that she was untruthful and deceptive
and that he should abandon her; and
that if he persisted in living with her,
he would disinherit and disown him; and
representations and inducements the
defendant alienated the affections of
his son for Ella, and compelled him to
take her to the home of her parents
against her consent, and that by reason
thereof she has been driven from her
home and not permitted to return. The
answer of the defendant was 4 denial
of the averments of the petition and
an allegation that the separation was
due to the fault of Ella and the MEM
bers of her family. Upon the issues
joined a trial was had which resulted
in a Judgment in favor. of the plaintiff
for 81, 800"
The supreme court holds that the
judgment was correct and that Mr..
Nevins will have to pay.
In its syllabus the court holds that
'fn an action for the alienation of the
affections of a husband or wife a state
ment in the petition of the ultimate
facts of the alienation and separation
1 is enough, without pleading the acts
done and artifices used to accomplish
the alienation.
The supreme court today reversed the
Wehe-Mood will case which has been
knocking about in the Shawnee county
district court for a number of years.
and it is sent back to the Shawnee
county court for trial again.
Robert Mood, who was formerly in
the plumbing business in Topeka, died in
December 1897. Left about $4,000 abso-
lutely to his widow, Mrs. Jane s. Mood,
ing to about $4,000, was to be divided
pro rata among his three daughters, Ida
NJ Wehe, Jennie Wehe and Lola Ben
Mood Mrs. Mood was to have life in
terest in the sc, 900 also
The three daughters brought suit 70
break the will, but Judge Hazen dis
missed the suit a demurrer. The
supreme court holds that it ought to
have been tried on it's merits.
In January, 1901, Jennie Wehe filed a
) motion to dismiss the action so far as
she was concerned, without prejudice,
but the trial court refused this motion,
: which the supreme court says was
wrong. Some of the other rulings made
by Judge Hazen are upheld, however,
but the case is sent back to the district
court with instructions to grant the mo-
f tion of Jennie Wehe, and try the bal
l ance of the case on its merits.
Edward LaRue, of Coffey county.
who was a soldier in the Philippines.
' was killed in Mindanao in May. 1900 by
' a blow from a bolo in the hands of an
insuIrecto: LaRue held a policy in the
Kansas Mutual Life Insurance com
pany which provided that he might
serve in the military service by giving
: the company notice and paying an ex-
E ira premium. He paid no extra premi-
um, however, and the company refused
I to pay the policy. His mother, Vashti
LaRue, brought action in the district
court Of Coffey county to recover the
amount OF the pO1cy. Inc lower court
:, held that LaRue had not complied with
I the provisions of the policy and that
the company could not be compelled to
pay. The question involved was
whether Mindanao was in a state of
peace or war at the time LaRue was
killed. In affirming the decision of the
lower court, the supreme court today
holds that Mindanao was in a state of
war, because the courts of this country
= take judicial notice that. under the
\ treaty of Paris, the Philippine islands
became a part of our territory and af-
: ter that time the inhabitants of those
| islands were in state of insurrection
: ! is also taken of the fact that in 1902
: / the insurrection had not ended in the
v island of Mindanao.
The plaintiff contended that Loculan,
j where I.aRue was killed. was not in 4
!, | state of war and that the soldiers had
+ been sent there for rest. This conten-
: ton was rejected by the trial court
An echo of the Cross bank failure ap-
peared in the supreme court decisions
! today When H. c. Cross, Of Emporia,
| died he left homestead valued at $15.-
. | 600. With him lived Mary Cross, his
| little granddaughter, the daughter OF
Charles s. Cross, who committed sui
eide Immediately following the now IA
nous Ernporia bank wreck The recsi =
er of the bank, A. w. Benson, brought
suit in the district court of Lyon coun-
ty to have the Cross homestead turned
| in among the assets of the bank. out
> in the meantime it had passed to little
Mary Cross. The Lyon county court
held n favor of the receiver, bit the
supreme court today reversed that de-
: cision roIding that "the constitutional
: exemption of a homestead from forced
, sale under process of law may survive
K to the family of its owner after his