The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1905-07-12
DENT-PIGKENS LAWSUIT
fconLinned fron1 page one.l'

lowed, and civil suit by Miss IGN
in Barbour county, for breach OIL
marriage promise, with the aggraya-
tion Of seduction, ensued. Igvo
Great and heated trials were had N
that county before Hon. Joseph -
Hoke. Judge. One in 1889, with q
verdict and Judgment on the 22lG
day of July, against Pickens, i I. =
$40, 100000 damages and @o4o.t :
costs.
This Judgment, for a technical err
ror against Pickens during the trial,
IN that. against his objection the
plaintiff was permitted to prove that
since the institution of the suit, ne
had become married, was reversed by
the Supreme Court, in an opinion
delivered by Judge Daniel y. l'u-
cas- I: and at the second trial. in 1872.
another verdict and Judgment on the
27th day of February, 1892, Tor
SO, 10000 damages, and SOY ID /
costs, was entered To this ludg-
ment the Supreme Court. upon the
application of Pickens, refused 4
writ of error and supersedeas.
At the first of these trials, Pick
ems did not appear. At the second
one, he did. admitted access, but de-
MED the marriage promise. Exeeu-
ton upon this last judgment was re-
turned unsatisffed. Meantime, Pick
ems, probably anticipating the re-
suit of the suit for breach of prom
Use of marriage against him. had con-
veyed, by deed to John j. Davis ;l1l'i
Aston G.. Dayton, trustees, dated
January 14th, 1889, all of his land
to secure about 81, 10000 of valid
debts. and then about $7,500.00 OF
recited debts to his sister, Mrs. Bor-
ing. his mother, Ann NJ. PiclIenS.
and to his fathers estate. All Of
these latter debts, except $2,50o.o9
10 his mother. which itself the court
declared to t'Iook suspicious, the
Supreme Court afterwards, in the
Chancery cause of Miss Dent against
Pickens and others, brought for the
purpose declared fraudulent, as to
the Plaintiffs debt.
Mr.. Davis. the we'll known atter-
nev of Clarksburg, and Mr.. DAYTON.
Of Philippi. now Judge Dayton. Of
the District Court of the United
States for the Northern District Of
West Virginia, the trustees in said
! trust. had been. with Mr.. John Bas-
eel. the distinguished trial lawyer Of
| Clarksburg, the attorneys for Pick
ms in the breach Of promise suit,
md were also his attorneys in the
Ghancery suit.
These circumstances particularly
The two frst-namcd attorneys being
10Th counsel and trustee for Pick
ms, were doubtless imputed to the
beneffciaries under the trust as mo-
ice of Pickens' alleged fraudulent
purpose, in the execution of tie
trust, to cheat the plaintiff.
Plaintiffs first or original bill WIS
lied before Judgment to set this
| rust aside. On May 10th, 1892
pickens and one Miss Minnie Co
burn. who had been a neighbor of
The Pickens. and was a daughter OF
lion. NJ. w. Coburn, Il former State
| Senator from Barbour county, and
afterwards citizen and member Of
The Legislature of Kansas, and one
If its Commissioners to the Worlds
fHlr III SulC'lSO III I'pJDs HlutIt' -
inferred into an ante nuptial contract
n the State of Kansas, which was
recorded in Barbour county at II
,'clock meridian, on the 18th day
lf Nav, 1889. This contract in
consideration of the marriage prom
So Of Miss Cobun, transferred to
Yer the residuum of Picllens' whole
state. real and personal, setting out
he latter fully ms to persons and
mounts, aggregating about $4,000
If debts due from his brothers and
listers, his nephew, said Albert $.
Dickens. relatives, and other persons.
Plaintiffs first amenSnd bill WAS
lied after fine first Judgment to set
his contract aside, as to it. Thes"
proceedings were pending during tic
oeriod when the Supreme Court rc-'
versed the first Judgment against
Dickens. After reversal and the re-
overy of the second judgment.
plaintiffs second amended bill WIS
flcd, setting up the last Judgment.
and the previous allegations in the
original bill and in the first amends
I'd bills. were repeated.
The executors of Pickens and the
related heneficiaries in the trust.
picknns himself and his wife. said