Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-12-24
WHICH IS WIDOW
Of L|swe||yn Leathers,
Late Of ST. Adams?
Petition for Annu|ment Of Di-
vorce Decree Argued.
Law Court TO Hear No More Cases
Until After Christmas.

Who is the legal widow OF Llcwellyn
feathers, late of St. Adams? This i'm
portant question is involved in the
Somerset county case of Frances
Leathers, petitioner for annulment of
decree of divorce, which was argued
Friday forenoon in the law court.
Gould g. Lawrence of SkOWhcgan APP
peared for the petitioner and Hon.
David d. Stewart of st. Adams for the
respondent. The case is a unique one
in many respect and the final decision
in regard to it will be awaited with
great interest on account of its peculiar
features.
The petitioner was married to one
Llcwellyn Lcathers in 1861 in Mime
apoliS. Mimi. and lived with him until
May l6 1891, when he left her and
came to st. Adams, Ne. leaving her at
Minneapolis in the house where they
were then living. Mr.. feathers, the
husband, flied in the supreme judicial
court for Somerset county at the Sep
tembcr term, 1894, a libel, dated August
8. 1894, for divorce from the petitioner
Frances, alleging cruel and abusive
treatment as cause.
.hI lLtdtiltIS <LiSSCN vi Oltlt III thN
libel and the residence of his wife
Frances was unknown to him and that
he had made inquiries and could not by
reasonable diligence ascertain her
residence He obtained upon this libel
and allegation an order of notice upon
his wife by publication in a Somerset
county circulated almost entirely with
in that county The notice by publica
ton was proved as ordered at the
December term 1894. a hearing had
and u decree of divorce made and en-
tered. No other notice was attempted
to be given and the wife had no notice
whatever of the libel and decree until
som" years aftcrWard, in 1897 or 1898.
II is cl1inlcd by the petitioner that
Mr.. Leather'3 allegation as to the resi-
dencc Of his wife was false and was
made for the purpose of preventing his
wife having any notice of the libel, as
he did know his Wifc'S residence. or ut
least knew perfectly well how to find
it
SOM two months after the decree Of
divorce Mr.. Leathers married the re-
spond"nt, Elizabeth Smith Stewart,
who had lived as a domestic in his
family III Minneapolis, and lived with
her III ST. Adams until his death there
in 1905, but had no children by her.
The respondent was aware of his in
ttntion to procure the divorce, and her
affidavit III support of the allegation of
cruel and abusive treatment was filed
In the case. No evidence was offered
that she instgatcd the making Of the
affidavit as to the residence of his wife,
but she had reason to believe that it
could have been easily ascertaincd.
Mr.. Lcathers died in 1903 and the re-
Spondcnt was appointed administrators
upon his estate and the personal estate
was awarded to her as the widows al
lowancc in 1903 The petitioner, al
though aware as early as 1898 of the
decree of divorce and of the marriage
ceremony of Mr.. feathers with the
respondent. did not file any petition for
the annulment of the decree of divorce
until Nov. 10, 1909, before which time
not only had Mr. Leathers died, but his
counsel in the divorce proceedings,
Josiah Crosby, and Justice Wiswell.
who granted the decree had also died.
She did not allege or prove that the
petition could not have been filed
earlier.
Personal service of this petition for
|annulment was made upon the re-
spondent as claiming to be the widow
of Mr.. LeatnerS, but no service was or
dered or made on her as admins
tratrix of Mr.. feathers. The only chill
drcn and heirs of Mr.. feathers are
two sons of himself and the petitioner,
of age. and who acknowledge the
tendency of the petition and make no
objection.
Mr.. Leathers was honorably dis
charged from the military service of
the United States and drew a pension
as such His legal widow is entitled
To pension on his account.
But one Washington county case was
heard, that of Lewis Clark ct ais, in
equity VS.. Andrew Clark ct ais. This
was a bill in equity to set aside q con-
veyance of real estate. John F.
Lynch for plaintiff. Pattangall &
Plumstead for defendant Congress