The Bemidji daily pioneer. [volume] (Bemidji, Minn.) 1904-1971, 1909-03-02
COMPLICATIONS over A
DEAD MANS BIG ''ROLL"
Con ONeil Trying to Secure $17OO,
Left BY Frank O'Neil, Recently
Deceased, Here.

BIalneTQ DlSpdtCh: lie dttclIlptS
of Con O'Neil, of this city to
secure possession of the estate of
his brother, the late Frank O'Neil
of Bemidji, have brought to light
curious complications concerning
the estate and may cause litiga-.
ton, though there seems no posi-.
bility of the brother securing any
share of the estate however it may
be settled.
The rather romantic facts in the
life of the late Frank O'Neil and
his matrimonial experiences are
about as follows, according to the
statement of w. A. M. Johnson,
clerk of the district court, and of
attorneys who have become identi-
fed with the case:
Frank O'Neil was married in
Wisconsin to woman whom he
afterwards deserted, coming to
Brainerd to reside While here he
was again married without the
formality of divorce. Later he
secured a divorce in this city on
the grounds of desertion, from the
first wife and was remarked. About
ten days ago he died at Bemidji,
interstate and leaving among other
property sum of money said to
be $1,000 in one of the Bemidji
banks. This money the brother,
Con O'Neil, is said to have mott
fed the bank not to pay over to the
widow, claiming, it is reported, that
he was the only legal heir of the
deceased.
An examination of the records of
Crow Wing county show the mar
rage, then the divorce from the first
wife, then the remarriage to the
second, w. H. Mantor, then NUM-
cipal judge, having performed both
marriages. 1t was at first the claim
of Con O'Neil that there had been
but one marriage to the second wife
and that the one performed before
the divorce was granted. His
chances of securing the estate or
any part of it, however are appar-
emily nullifed by the fact that
though the first wife remarked after
the divorce and now lives. in New
York, yet if the divorce was not
valid, then her marriage with her
second husband is void and she is
the widow of Frank O'Neil. Besides
this there were two children by the
first marriage, according to their
reports, but they are said to have
been adopted by other parties and
whether or not this would bar them
from the participation in their
fathers estate is a question. The
divorce and remarriage would GER
tainly not deprive them of their
rights.
. The illegality of the first marriage
to the second wife was cured by the
second marriage if the divorce was
valid, but there is, it is said by
attorneys, a decision of the Supreme
court which has held that the courts
of one state have not jurisdiction in
divorce cases over parties who are
residents of other states, which may
render the second marriage void and
the divorced wife, supposed the wife
of another man the true widow with
her children the sole heirs of the
property. Taken altogether it is a
complicated mixup which would
probably never have been brought
to light but for the attempts of the
brother to secure possessions of the
property. It is said that one of the
valuable assets of the estate is a
cause of action against the Crook
ston Lumber company, in whose
employ the deceased was when he
received the injuries which caused
his death.