The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-08-06
MRS. RALEIGH
ASKS REHEARING
Wants Supreme Court to Consider
Points in Fight For Home.
PLURAL WIFE A. H. RALEIGH
POLYGAMY AND cANNI 8ALISM
IN COMPARISON.

In a petition through her attorneys,
Rogers & Street ana Arthur Brown.
Emily p Raleigh has asked for re-
hearing by the supreme court of her
suit against Caroline G r. Wells ct al,
in which she seeks to recover title to
a house in which she resided for sew
enteen years as the pOlygamOus wife
of the late a. II. Raleigh. The petition
for re-hearing was filed yesterday al
tsrRoon-
The petition treats first of the peeu-
liarity of pOlygamous relations in gen
eral, urging that because of polyga-
nous and unlawful connection the
woman could not have been robbed of
all the rights which a human being
would have"
In part the petition follows:
1--WE recognize that the court should
take judicial notice of the condition
of affairs in Utah. but it is no reason
court should enforce the power of
polygamous husband to kick out his
polygamouS wives and deprive his
pOlygamous young ones to support. We
recognize that it was the custom of
cannibals to eat human flesh. That is
no reason why the court should per-
NIT cannibal to eat human flesh. Be
cause a custom has existed in viola
tion Of civilization. decency, order and
law it is no reason that. the court
should enforce it or put i'm the power
of stronger party to injure the
weaker by means of it.
Mrs. RaIeieh's Rights.
IF Mrs. Raleigh va, a wife she
would have the inheritances, and rights
of a wife II Mrs. Raleigh was mis-
tress she had the rights of an indie
r0e41Ae11r RI ha he hald of a
household. 1t cannot properly be pre-
tended or claimed, as counsel has. that
she is a wife for one purpose and not
a wife for another.
After claiming the exception of in
nocence for seventeen years and after
having proclaimed. for seventeen years
that she was the sole owner and sole
possessor and had the sole domination
and ownership of the property, the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
tual Investment company, cannot be
held to deny that he thus formally pro-
claimed.
Donations of Property"
'Plaintiff claims, first, that there
was a donation OF this property when
the deceased married this plaintiff and
brought her to it. Second, there was
a second donation when the deceased
turned out his other wives and es-
ia bliShed her as the sole mistress of
that mansion and raised by her an
enormous family of children. now
grown up Third, there was a COM
plete. and absolute donation when he
stepped out of the house and said: 4
viii make my home elsewhere. and
move my effects and leave you here a
the mistress of this home" and fol-
lowed it by his absence of seventeen
years before he died. Fourth, that
when this act of change of residence
took place there was the absolute es-
tablishment of the independent house
hold occupied independently by Emily
P. Raleigh before the decease of A. H.
Raleigh
The petition goes on to cite authors
ties on parole gifts of land and deeds
on condition 1t analyses the different
evidences of gift in the four in
stances cited. 1t denies Inconsistency
in claiming under the will and also
claiming this house and the title to
this house" 1t concludes in this con-
nection that Bishop Raleigh had the
right to provide for Emily P Raleigh
in the viii and beyond the title to
the house in any way he saw fit
Not innocent Purchaser.
The concluding paragraph of the petit
ton sets forth that the Mutual Invest
ment company was not an innocent
purchaser, as follows:
AhEIE can De no innocent purchaser
when the person affected is in possess
SION Mrs Raleigh was there i'm pos
session She was the sole poSsessor.
and had been for seventeen years. Mr..
Romney bought. he bought with notice
of it. He was not an innocent pur-
chaser for the reason that the prop
erty was shown to have been worth
$4,000, and he paid the church only
$500 for it. The vast inequality in
the price was evidence that he was
buying on the speculation of the law
suit and was not buying as an inno-
cent purchaser. It is said that he paid
Mrs. Wells a large sum of money in
addition. She had no possession. She
had nothing that she could give. There
can be no pretence that he was an
innocent purchaser
Hearing Not Set.
Owing to the fact that Judge w II.
King is at present in Los Angeles, the
respondents will be given a extension
over the legal forty-eight hours in
which to file it's answer The supreme
court will then consider the petition
and answer and if the facts justify will
notify the counsel of its desire to hear
further Argument.
The percentage of cases in which
the supreme court grants a rehearing
has in the past been small.