Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-08-08
DEFAMATION or THE DEAD.

DEFAMATION or THE DEAD.
II appears that the attorneys for
Mrs. Emily p Raleigh have made an
I application IN her behalf for a rehear-
ing OF her case IN the Supreme court
: Of the state We do not Intend TO
touch upon the alleged legal points put
forward In the application, although
some Of them are so peculiar as to be-
IN the eyes Of a layman, positively nn-
surd, but the court no doubt VIII deal
with them. II the ems" should be re-
opened which we regard as very doubt
ml. II ls IN reference TO some pre-
tended facts that are presented that
we desire to say something
The document contains some OF the
same inaccuracies and false accusa'
lions that have been published con-
corning the late Alonso = Raleigh ana
his last win and testament. For In
stance, It denies that 'the court
should enforce the power Of a polyga-
nous husband to Kick out his polyg'
amous wives ana deprive his polyg'
amous young ones OF support That
Is the idea that 10 conveyed through
out the document filed With the SUI
preme, court. THAT is the charge that
has been preferred against the de"
ceased testator. And yet In the SAME
application It Is alleged IN regard to
the house tho plaintiff claims:
''He did not give this home to am
other wife. He had provided for them
enough. But he attempts to give this
30 his church, which does not need IL
and ia bursting with It's wealth This
admission Is q virtual refutation OF the
covert charge made against Mr.. RAJ
leigh. that he had "kioked out his po-
lygamous wives and deprived his po-
lygamous young ones of support We
have already published the facts In
This case, but we will here mention
them briefly that they may be fully
understood by the public;
Alonzo p. Raleigh at his decease had
swo plural wives and several children.
10 al Of whom he left some property
or provision, or had already done so
by previous deed, To his plural wife
Elizabeth Raleigh he lett real estate
on Center street To hls plural wife
Emily p. Raleigh, who Is the plaintiff
in the case decided by the courts, he
lett real estate on First West street,
opposite the house which she is en-
deavoring 10 gain possession Of on
the land decided to her are three houses.
either OF which she might occupy, but
which are rented at q total Of sac a
month. In addition to that property
she has, under his VIII, q cash al
lowance Of S2j per month and further
amount of SIG month for the care Of
her Incompetent SON. This aggregates
the sum Of $50 per month, II that Is
TO be considered "kicMng her out Of n
home" there are good many widows
in the country who would be very glad
Of such kind OF "kIcklng."
The house which she now endeayors
TO claim as hers was left under the
viii to son and daughter of the de-
ceased during their NE time. After
their death the property was to so Ia
the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter
day Saints. The interest OF the
Church in this property which Of
course Is remote. was purchased by
tho Mutual rlyeotment company. Mrs
Emily r. Raleigh accented tho terms
Of the win and Is receiving the income
provided for her under that instru,
ment.
II viii no seen that the Church has
had nothipg Ia do I'm the matter ex-
cont that which we have cxplained II
has not turned out the widow Of Alonzc
= Raleigh nor uterfsred with the DOS.
session Of tbo rroperty hv anv one
Nor d,d the deceased nttompt 10 de.
nrivo either NJ his mural ,vivos NJ q
home or Of such .unport AS ne wa,
shle IN furnish them. Emily - Ro.
,e,gh wants to obtain possessiop nj
,roror,y which ina ho,ps,tb.d 10 , GO,
ana daughter That is An, oist NJ IN,
contention
uyh,t yorh,l ,ror,,s,s bs NAV b,y.
made 10 Fr,l,v y wo do ma, know w.
So nor ,,ra Cor thor, ,p,, 10 an