The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1913-07-22

returned few months late and OBJ
tanned possession of the children by
means of letter to which she forged
LIE Suer's name. She then disappeared.
This was just before the breaking out
of the civil wr, and lie Suer, abandon
ing his home and work, set out for the
South in search Of his children. He
did not come back until 1866, when he
showed up in Pipestone with another
woman whom he represented as his
wife.
Man of Many Wives
He lived with this woman until her
death, when he married one Anna
Schmidt. He lived with her until her
death and several children were born
to them. Then third wife was taken
who was known as Julia lie Suer. She
survived Erastus, who died in 1910.
One child was born to them. LIE Suer
lived with his last wife for 80 years
and it was this woman whom Mary
Jane LIE Suer sought to have deprived
of the property belonging to Erastus
LIE Suer and which Julia LIE Suer re-
ceived on his death.
The best the court could find was
that Mary Jane lie Suer, after desert
ing her husband for the third time,
went to New Orleans where she has
since resided, and that not long after
taking up her residence in the South
she informed her relatives that she
was married to man by the name of
Thompson and that she has ever since
been known as Mrs Thompson. The
court further found that after leaving
LIE Suer in 1858, for the third and last
time, Mary JaEe lie Suer never made
any claim to have been his wife until
after his death.
Question of Marriage
Passing on the Capitalization of Mary
Jane and Erastus LIE Suer AMI the fire.
quent assertions on the part Of the
woman, the court says:
when parties cohabit as husband
and wife and hold tn smselves out as
such, it is evidence Of marriage. but
not conclusive evidence. To constitute
a co.nmon-law marrl .g:, the parties
Must contract with each other to be
husband and wife. L: they cohabit
with. Ut such understanding and agree
ment they are not husband and wife,
however long such relations may con-
tinue."
The frequent interruptions in the al
legged natal relations of the two, and
finally her disappearance with per-
iod of more than so years elapsing be-
tween her final desertion and her APP
pearance at the death of LIE Suer to
claim the property left, the court holds
lis ample evidence that Mary Jane LIE
Suer has no right to participate in the
property in question. This property
was sold by LIE Suer to the three de-
PENDANTS named, by and with the con-
sent of his wife, Julia. Mary Jane LIE
Suer's attempt to have the deed set
aside was on the ground that she was
the lawful wife of Errstus LIE Suer
and had never given her consent to
the transfer.
The syllabus is:
Mary Jane LIE Suer, appellant, VS..
Julia LIE Suer respondent; Mary Jane
LIE Suer, appellant, VS.. F. c. Nuffer,
respondent; Mary Jane LIE Suer, ap-
pellant, VS.. Charles j. Dock, respon-
dent.
1t is mutual, present consent, law
fully expressed, which constitutes
marriage. Capitalization as husband
and wife is evidence of marriage, but
not conclusive evidence. 1t may be
rebutted by the conduct of the parties.
The finding of the trial court that ap-
pellant was not the lawful wife of the
decedent held sustained by the evil
dence.-M Minneapolis Tribune.