The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1908-11-26
new TURN IN A
DIVORCE CASE
Woman Wants to be Made the
Widow, of the Dead
Man

Pittsburg, Nov. 2.-Seeking to have
the court set aside decree in di-
vorce granted against her and have
herself declared the widow of dead
man was the unique situation develop
ed in an..equity suit heard by Judge
Over in court Of common pleas No. l
yesterday in the case of Emile P.
Drees against William Nielander and
Henry Erik, executors of the last will
and testament of Henry W. Drees, de-
ceased. Attorney Morton Hunter
brought the suit for the plaintiff and
the defendants are represented by At
torneys A. H. & H. H. Rowand. Aft
er hearing the testimony Judge Over
reserved his decision. This is the first
case of its kind in the country.
Mrs. Drees brings the action on the
ground that when her husband enter
ed suit to secure a divorce she en-
gagged attorneys to defend the action
and that they failed to notify her
when the case came up or to defend
1t for her, her former husband getting
a decree without opposition. He has
since died and left an estate to their
three children. If her effort succeeds
she will be legally entitled to her
widows dover of one-third of the es-
tate. The attorneys deny that they
failed to represent her and claim that
she abandoned the case after failing
to get alimony from the court, the de-
cree going to the husband by default,
and they SO testified yesterday.
Henry w. Drees filed his suit in d.
vorce on April %, 1904, against the
plaintiff in the present case, alleging
indignities, and the decree was grant
ed December 2, 1904. The respondent,
after her husband had filed his suit,
filed a petition for counsel fees and
alimony, and the husband filed an
answer to this petition alleging his
wife was not entitled to alimony or
counsel fees, because she had aban-
doned his home. The court refused
to grant her alimony, and then, it is
alleged to her counsel, she voluntari-
ly abandoned the action and made no
defense to his suit.
Dfees was in financial trouble at
the time, and all his property was in
the hands of the sheriff. He after
wards recovered some of his property
and left a considerable estate when he
died nMarch. 1906, leaving will CIV
ing all his property to his three chill
dren.
In her suit brought three and a
half years after the divorce was
granted the former wife now declares
that the court erred in granting the
decree, giving as causes that the de-
cree is based on the finding that the
respondent was guilty of indignities
to the person of libellant, the same
not being legal ground or cause for
divorce; that the decree was founded
on the consideration of testimony that
was legally inadmissible in evidence;
that the proceeding ex-parte before
the commissioner to take testimony on
the part Of the husband was without
notice to the wife; the failure to find
as matter of law that there was
constructive fraud and collusiop in
procuring the decree by which both
the wife and court were imposed upon.
suspicious circumstances being the
entering an appearance of attorneys
for the respondent, the presenting Of
q petition for alimony and counsel
fees, the order of court allowing her
attorneys counsel fees of $25 and the
payment by the husband of that
amount, the fact that no answer was
inled nor defense made for her, and
the fact that the testimony was taken
ct the ONCE Of her husbands attor-
neys and her attorneys did not appear