The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1911-07-14
MOLLER PAIR RECONCILED
BRIDEG ROOM DROPS SUIT TO
GET HIS PROPERTY BACK.
Alleged That He Was "Ent,ced Into .
Pretended and Compulsory Subniis.
sion to Marriage Ceremony" After
separation Met His wife and Made Up.

sion to Marriage Ceremony" After
separation Met His wife and Made up.
A marriage separation suit TO set aside
deeds to Sl25.OO0 Of property he gave
TO his bride and reconciliation with his
bride few days ago are among the few
things that have happened since last
August to Charles G. Moller. who is now
65 years old and who inherited part
Of the fortune that his father Peter Moller,
made in the sugar business.
These happenings are all set forth in
papers submitted to Supreme Court jus
tice Page yesterday on an application
by Moller for permission to discontinue
an action he began last April against
Jane Sommer. sometimes known as Jane
Moller" The application to discontinue
was opposed By counsel for the defend
ant, who hadn't got their fee. The court
appointed a referee TO determine the
amount due the lawyers and discontinued
tho suit. The lawyers want $1,000. and
the Mo!lers are willing TO pay si,0
The fact that Moller wes married AT the
City Hall on August 70 last to a'woman
who gave the name Of Jane Brennan.
4j years old did not come ont until a
month later. and in the meantime MIR.
Moler and his bride had sailed for Eu-
rope for his health When they returned
on September os last Mr., Moller was too
i'll TO walk down the gangplank without
assist ancc
The complaint in Mr. Moller's suit
against Jane Sommer was attached To the
papers before Justice Page The suit
was TO set aside deeds t. the house at 200
Madison avenue where Mr. Moller had
lived for years. and to the property at
Pip Madison avenue. where the defendant
was living when Moller first met her.
The property was valued at si25,0oo. and
was decided TO the defendant on October
| 20 last. some time after the return from
! Europe
Mr. Moller's complain, said that the
paper recorded in the Register S office pur-
ported TO be bargain and sale deed by
/ the plaintiff 20 the defendant. named
! in writing as Jane Moller his wife. resid-
| ing at 29o Madison avenue, aud the con-
sideration named was 81 and love and
affection. The plaintiff said that the in
come from the property had been part OF
his means Of support for about thirty-two
wears, that for many years he had been
| in i'll health aud enfecbled and was very
suscept ible TO the influence of others IN
regard to his property and his ahairs
! In 1910 bv reason OF his continued III
health his mind and will power at the
time OF executing the deed were weakened
and he W a. unable to resist the influence
Of the defendant aud act OF his own &C
cord The defendant knew OF his i'll
hess. Moller said. and determined TO get
possession Of all or part OF his property
because Of his weakness.
Nv means OF wrongful deception and
Eduress. he said, the defendant enticed and
lured him into e pretended and compul-
soIy submission To marriage ceremony
deed be set aside and that the defendant
be enjoined from disposing of any OF the
property pending the action
Thomas ". Butts and Arthur p Nining,
who are law partners at 81 Chambers
street. were counsel for Mrs Moller IN
the execution of the deed to Mrs. Moller
thev had Patrick j Dobs,n of their Office
named "a attorney of record for Mrs.
Mollnr. In affldavitS opposing the dis
continuance Of the suit they said that
in the autumn of 1910 Mr.. Molier called
them into consultation because he was Ill
= and his phvsicians had been discharged
by his son and other physicians and
/ nurses substituted who were object ionable
to him Ne was fearful lest an ehort wa>
. 10 be made by his son and other relatives
! who did not approve OF HIS wife to RESTRAIN
. him of his liberty and have a committee
4 of his person appointed He retained
. them TO resist for himself and his wife
= anv attempt to commit him to sani'
r tarium.
The lawyers said they advised Mollel
). as to what to do to protect himself anC
/ 1, N,l1ar yyanfA1 N fran1fAr al
| his estate to his wife, They advised
4 against it. 40 he gave her only the prop
er,v in the deed
On April 25 last. the lawyers said, th'
defendant called them up and said tina
) her husband had disappeared and tha
papers had been served on her and sh'
, was in dire distress. She was summone,
. to their Office and she had with her thu
4 complaint in the present action, Ate
= reading it they told her that the rea
A ob iect Of the suit was to attack and anni
. the marriage on the ground that the de
= fendunt was incompetent to contrac
the marriage because she had husband
/; living at the time. They inquired int
u ali her history. they said. and told he
o they would protect her. although sh
D., told them she had no money TO defent
the case. She said that Moller hac
. taken thir,y-eight 81 900 bonds out o
. his vault and given them TO her to put il
l. n safe deposit box Of her own. to whicl
both had access. The lawyers told he
3 not to dispose of her bonds. but to pu
2 them in another box to which Molle
e didn't have access Mr.. Vining wen
with her when she got another box 70
her bonds.
Later Mrs Moller called with Johl
F. CDwan, who she said had been he
e personal friend for years, and asked tha
= he be associate counsel in her case
~ Subsequently Butts 4 Nining were in
" formed by Mr.. Cowsn that the diner
Y ences between the Mollers had beer
n ad justed and they sent in bill of 81 ,OOt
n which Mrs. Moller wouldn't pay. The
y said they were entitled to the amour
,,e named because $3.50 900 OF property wa
s indirectly involved, and by reason Q
'e the indirect attack on Mrs. Moller'
< marriage status several hundred thou
'r sand dollars more were at stake. The
lc were informed by Mr.. Cowan that Mr.
Moller met her husband on the sire.
by accident one day and that they cam
to an underst anding as to their ditfel
d ences, the basis of which was that MIR
:, Moller was to keep all she had got frol
Il" her husband They said that the r.
v sumpt ION of relations between the plainti
II and defendant would weaken Moller
t, case against her il differences shou
n. arise in the future. because the resumI
p, ion of the marital relations may he set u
: az confirmation of the deed.