The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-09-28
HUGHES HEIRS l WONDER WHERE
 Sl5,OOO WENT
Bulk of Estate Goes to St. Patriek'S Church, But Cash
 is StFangly Missing

The heirs of the late Michael Hughes are greatly concerned as to what has become of about s15,Ooo in cash which he is believed to have possessed in ad- .dition to the property in Main street at the head of Elm street which ap- pears to be his entire estate at the time of his death.
 The property has a frontage of 20 feet in Main street, and it is said to be worth $2,0o0 a front foot. The store in the building is occupied by O'Neill, the rubber merchant. The property was listed by the deceased upon the tax books of the city at $28,- 900 The assessors raised the value ito $30,500 last year and the Board or Relief fixed the valuation at $28,5O0 upon the appeal of the owner.
 After the funeral of the deceased. held on Monday at the residence of Michael Hughes, a brother, 719 Wash Cdty Auditor Bernard Heating. showing that about $6,00o had been bequeathed ito the sisters, brothers, nephews and nieces. The residue of the estate was left to St. Patrick'S parish where a new church edifice is under way. The property in Main street is said by the heirs to be the only property tbelonging to the deceased that can be Iocated at the time of his death. The property is incumbered with mortgages aggregating $7,0Oo. held by the City
 
 worth s4O,0oO there will be about S27. 900 coming to St. Patrick's parish after lthe bequests of the will are paid and ithe mortgages are satisfied.
 ' When the will was read to the heirs kon Monday it was great surprise to them that the deceased had left the bulk of his property to the church.
 The largest of the bequests to in dividuaIs was $1,O0O to Mrs. Margaret iSheedy, mother of Dr. Geo. F. Sheedy. of 2049 Main street, and sister of the deceased.
 : MT. Keating, who is one of the exc tcutors of the estate and the custodian ! of the will, stated this morning that he would not discuss the document and would not make it. public until it had been filed with the Probate court. He also declined to state when the ever, from an authoritative source that the will was made early during this summer after the testator had made a settlement with his wife from whom he had been separated for a number of years. The records in the town clerks office show that Matthew Hughes bought the Main street prop erty in 1876 and that he gave a bond for a deed.
 He undoubtedly had the property paid for with the exception of a $500 mortgage in 1884, when he conveyed the property to his brother, John J. Hughes, after having trouble with his wife. In 1892 the brother deeded the property back to Matthew, who in the meantime had secured divorce through the courts of Western State.
 On February 6. 1908, Margaret Hughes, nee Pagan, brought suit against Matthew Hughes through the law firm of Beers & Foster It was after the Federal courts had made a sweeping decision to the effect that a divorce granted in one State did not stand in another. It. was alleged in the complaint that the wife had not received proper notice of the suit.
 The wife claimed Sa5.00R damages, claiming that t1ae defendant was worth $40. 900 and had an income of sS,0Q0 year She stated further that from had been guilty of intolerable cruelty and had threatened her life. She fur ther stafed that she had been driven