New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-09-09
Woman Fights Will
.OfGeo. G.. Barnard;
Says She Was Wife
Relatives Sued for Account
ing, Deny Kin Married
Plaintiff

Did George G.. Barnard, who died
two years ago AZ his home at Amlty-
vile. Long Island. leave widow The
Farmers Loan and Trust Company Is
particularly anxious to know and has
gone into court TO find out.
So far as relatives of the late MI
Barnard are concerned they are per-
foctlv certain he did not, the lady IN
the case TO the contrary notwithstand-
ing.
Mrs. Mary R. Wsgstaf, a sister OF
the late Mr. Barnard, has been sued
along with others. for an accounting
by the trust company. Yesterday her
husband. Colened Alfred WagstaT, who
is president of the Society for the
Prevention Of Cruelty to Animals, Med
an affidavit in the Supreme Court. in
connection with the suit against his
wife. emphatically denying that his
brother-in-law had left widow.
Claims To Be Widow
The real issue in the matter was
forced by Mary G.. Shelly, who claims
that she is the legal widow OF the late
Mr.. Barnard Six months after his
death she brought action through her
attorneys TO secure recognition OF her
claims as the widow. At that time the
Farmers Loan and Trust Company,
which had been made custodian Of a
fund of 100000 by the will of Mr..
Barnard. had already paid SAT 800 to his
three sisters, according to the terms OF
the document.
There is no attempt on the part of
Mr.. Barnard's relatives to deny the
relationship existing between him and
Mrs. Shelly for a period Of time cover
ing about fifteen years. 1t is the con-
tention of Colonel Wagstaff's affidavit
that Mr.. Barnard had specifically stated
that Mrs. Shelly was a paid employe
who had been amply recompensed for
her services and for whose welfare he
had provided after his death.
In the claim of widowhood set forth
by Mrs. Shelly she asserts that as far
back as 1901 Mr. Barnard had given
her a wedding ring while paying her a
visit at her home in Providence, K. l.
She had always relied upon his state
ment made at that time that under the
L. l.. ie Of - it,1t
ed "a legal marriage ceremony.
At the time she fled her action Mrs
Shelly sought 20 have n jury trial OF
her claims. John ". Farquhar, Of the
firm Of Barry. Wainwright, Thatcher &,
SUMMERS, of 80 Wall Street, opposed
the granting Of the petition. lie ar
gued that Mrs. Shelly had waited for
six months after the death Of Mr.
Barnard before making any claim to
being his widow, and that she did not
assert that there had ever been a cere-
monial marriage.
May Have TO Return Money
According to affidavits submitted in
connec on with her suit. Mrs. Shelly
states that when she first met Mr..
Barnard she was the wife of Charles
A. Mowry. After the death. OF Mr.
Mowry, she sets forth. Mr.. Barnard be-
came a frequent visitor TO her home al
Providence, and eventually gave her the
ring on which she bases her claim to
widowhood.
In case Mrs. Shelly succeeds in es-
tablishing her claim as widow it will
be necessary for Mr.. Barnard's sisters
to return the money they have received
from the trust company.
George G.. Barnard was a son OF the
late justice of the Supreme Court OF
the same name. He had inherited the
greater portion of his estate from his
grandfather, John Anderson.