Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1916-12-21

anything, I think, that has ever been
brought before this. or any other
court" Speaking OF the relation Of the
brothers, he said: 1T is relation
that exists between these brothers
such as i have never heard OF before.
There seems to have heen a confidence
btween these brothers such as have
no desire to criticise. that In IA sense,
is relation between these brothers
that is not only unique, Sut II is a
beautiful relation"
But in the working out OF the rela-
lions of the brothers and it's effect upon
others. Mills argued there is another
situation. the case being tried.
Elements Of Seifishnsss.
while as between the brothers this
relation may be commendable and
beautiful and all that" he said 1T has
in 1t and underneath 1t an element OF
selRshness, not as between the
brothers. but in their desire to cut all
else loose and retain everything to
themselves regardless Of their relations
by marriage or otherwise"
Mills declared that the situation OF
the widow OF Charles Fleming, beins
cut off Without q dollar after thirty
five years of faithful service was one
that shocks the conscience.
This situation in the working out,
he said, "deprives the widow of one OF
these brothers, not widow OF rev
married years, but a widow after
thirty-five years of faithful service as
a wife. Nobody claims anything differ
ent from that, not even the brothers
themselves"
All Of the three FLEMING contracts
were drawn, Mills said. for the pur-
pose Of avoiding a settlement with the
widow. The first contract was drawn
in 1895. he said, little less than a
year after the first child Of Mr.. and
Mrs. Robert Fleming was BORN
The contracts by which the Elem
ings pooled their interests were for
the sole purpose. Mills said, Of making
certain that no person save the broth
ers would ever have to be settled
with.
Claims Legal Fraud.
1--WE claim that this is a legal fraud
upon the rights Of the wife," he said.
.We claim that these contracts are
null and void as far as she is con-
cerned She was not party to them.
They were concealed from her, accord
ing to her testimony, and there Is not
a word in the record that this woman
ever knew the contents of these con-
tracts
The plaintiff, who has right to .eN-
pect support from her husband in his
lifetime has now the right to expect
a share in his estate Mills declared.'
Charles Fleming, he said. could not
transfer his rights In the Fleming prop
critics, retain control of them to the
day of his death and leave the widow
without any rights.
He pictured the situation of the
widow waking up after the death of
her husband to find that altho she
had been able to use the property.
which she had helped to accumulate.
during her husbands life. she now was
cut Off without a dollar
What the defendants say they are
going to do about taking care of the
widow cuts no figure" Mills said. III
they are allowed to get away with this
proposition they can do as they please.
If contracts are upheld YOU lay down
law that what they might not do, other
men can do.
Turned Out Pennies.
"She was a careful frugal. saving
woman said Mills Of Mrs. Fleming.
None Of the brothers will critictse her.
Now she Is to be turned out with 5000
or $500 worth OF furniture and no as
s,lrance of what she will get except the
word of the brothers.
What Mrs. Fleming would get UNI
der the proposition of the brothers.
Mills said, she must go and ask for,
ask for what is hers as a matter of
right
Mills declared the law says a man
can't will property away from his wife.
This" he said, "is an attempt to do
by contract what the law says YOU
can't DOLBY Will"
None of the Fleming brothers could
escape creditors. Mills said, by saying
he had no money, that the funds We're
the joint property Of the brother
hood" The existence of contracts to
that effect would not keep the creditors
from getting, their menet he as
serted.