The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1911-12-16
THE SECOND
IS. !s;lHFARP|'s !s;lHF| | 2 !.
: LEGAL WIFE
Recent Kansas Supreme Court
Decision UphOlds Ce|Ias
Claim
snecIal to the paIly Leader.

Specis to the Daily Leader
Topeka, Kansas. Dec. l6.--Peter
Sharp. the Pitts ,urg man with tive
wives, who has decided TO give up the
newest one and return 10 his old love
since the two wives could not live
happily together, may have a hard
time obtaining = divorce from his sec
ond wife.
The hansas supreme court, in an
opinion handed down last week, held
against Just such an action as Peter
Sharp has brought and held tnat the
second marriage was the one TO stand
The decision was gwen in the suit
Of Belle Overton against the estate
Of Lewis Carter of Leayenworth
Lewis Carter married Belle Overton
in lseavenworth January 10, 1880, but
they separated a day or so later and
Carter went 10 California TWO years
later he returned and announced that
he had obtained divorce and No
yember 25 1889, he married Hattie
Shepard and they lived together untii
l9vS. when Lewis carter died There
were eight children horn 10 this un-
ion.
Supposed She Was Divorce.
LII Nhit iutAllAililN l1tiAt VA ~ NhN
first wife, taking as true carriers an.
nouncement OF the divorce, was mar
ried to Edwin Overton OF Lawrence
and they lived together many years
ana had several children. she new
er questioned the divorce proceed
ings of her first husband until after
he had been married 10 Hattie Shep-
ara eighteen years, was The father
Of eight children. and she had been
married some fifteen years
After the death of Lewis Garter, IN
1908, Mrs. OYerton found that her
first husband had never obtained a
divorce from her and she brought suit
against her first husbands estate TO
get the widows share OF The proper
ty. The supreme court said that this
first wife, who mad married second
time in good faith, had no claims TO
the first husbands estate. In its op-
inion the court said:
Nov, when a marriage has been
entered into in apparent coed faith |
as here, and children have been born |
ID 1t, courts 60 TO the limit in uphold |
ing the validity OF the union and the |
legitimacy OF the children. So, when |
ii appears that person who was mar |
ried before is living ID wedlock, the |
presumption operates in favor OF the |
second marriage, ii being presumed /
that the first marriage had been an
nulled by death or divorce, and II has
been held that, ii IL appears that
man has been married three times,
the presumption is in favor OF the
third rather than the second marri-
age. When a second marriage has
been entered into in good faith and
all parties have acted on the assump-
tioR that the first is no longer in force
the natural inference and the prevail
ing presumption is that no legal i'm
pediment existed TO entering in the /,
new matrimonial relations.
Sharp Case is Similar.
Peter Sharp is just about in the
same predicament as was Mrs. over
ton. He married his first wife in lS49
aud came West many years ago and
thought his first wife had died in the
Chicago fire December ,, 1902. he
married again al Grard. Kan, and
he and his second wife lived together
in good faith, as husband and wife,
even after the first wife appeared
Now Sharp has brought suit for a
divorce from his second wife. Now
the supreme court holds in another
case that the second marriage rather
than the first must stand II