The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-05-05
GORDON-MUNN CASE.
VIII Be Tried by Jury in District
Court This Time.

The sensational Gordon-Munn case,
involving title to an estate valued at
$4,000. will again be tried in the dis
trict court and has been assigned for
trial in the second division late this
month. Last fall the judgment of the
trial court was reversed by the SUI
preme court on the grounds that Judge
Dana erred in refusing to grant the
defendants a jury in the trial of the
action.
G. S. Gordon died in Topeka March
IS, 1903. Gordon died intestate and
left as legal heirs the widow and one
daughter, Lille Gordon Mum. Short
ly after Gordon's death the daughter
filed suit in the district court to annul
the widows rights to participate in
the settlement of the estate. Almost
at the same time Mrs. Gordon filed suit
Lewis H. Mum, in which she sought
to quiet title to an undivided one-haf
interest in the estate.
The case was one of the hardest
fought and bittereSt equity suits ever
tried in this county. Mrs. Gordon had
been married twice before her alleged
marriage to Gordon. Both of the nus
bands were living at the time of her
marriage to Gordon and as defense
in the case, Mrs. Mum alleged that
her DEGREES of divorce were Irregular
They also alleged that she could not
legally marry Gordon under these cir
CuIlSIdHC6S anu Iudl the lag w"
with the father was in reality mere
form.
Then there were other contentious.
Evidence in the case showed that by
were born. The second child died be-
fore the father. At the time of Cor
don's marriage to the second wife. he
was ~ years old while the bride was
80. Gordon, it appeared, realized
these matters thoroughly. He did not
take kindly to marriage with wom-
an almost half his age, who would
inherit extensively at his death. So
Gordon drew an ante-nuptiai agree
ment. 1t was so severe that the John
G. Cooper documents fall to the dis
card. It provided absolutely nothing
for the wife. In every way the con-
tract barred Mrs. Gordon from an OPP
portunity to share in the estate. But
when Judge c. B. Graves wrote the
supreme court decision in the case, he
recited that if Mrs. Gordon was vested
with the power to sign that contract,
she was also clothed with authority to
inherit at Gordon's death.
One of the big fights in the case oc-
CURED when Judge Dana denied the
motion of the defenants for trial by
Jury. He held that the court was vest
ed with the power of trial in such
cases. The case occupied the atten-
ton of the court almost two weeks
Much sensational testimony was intro
duced, especially by the defense. When
Judge Dana decided the case, Mrs.
Gordon won. 1t gave her title to ap-
proximatelv 5000 worth of property.
The defense appealed. Their strong
complaint was on the alleged error of
the trial court in refusing to grant a
jury. The supreme court sustained
this contention and remanded the case
for retrial-this time by a jury They
did not touch on other matters in
volved in the issue. In deciding the
case Justice Graves said the constitu-
ton surrounding the rights Of trial by
jury raised a very close question and
read like a glittering generality" 1t
was on the theory that Judge Dana
had ample grounds wherein to grant
jury that the case was reversed.
The second trial of the cause will be
taken up in Judge Whitcomb's division
as soon as the present assignment is
completed. Both sides have signified
their readiness to go to trial. The
twelve jurors who are selected to try
the action can resign themselves to at
least two weeks for the trial of the
case. While the case has been pend
ing Charles F. Spencer has been acting
as receiver. under the order of the
court. He has looked after the estate
There is considerable revenue on
hands from the rental of properties.