The Washington times., 1920-05-16

Thomass dilemma, ss explained by lawyers who have
examined the release:
Q)-H Mrs. Shonts had no valid claim for damages
then the meaningless and has
legal value and does not help Mrs Thomas in any way.
(2-H the agreement has any value it is only the
admission that Mrs Shonts conveying her rights in
just claim for damagesan astonishing confession for
Mrs Thomass lawyer to carelessy allow her make IL
this is correct view.
But that is not all.
What and for how long does this release protect Mrs.
Thomas from being called to account for njurng Mrs.
Shontsi
Even admitting that the document is valid and really
does protect the Thomas from sut-t only pro-
tecs her to the day the document signed June
90, 1917.
Even if Amanda is immune from her acts previous
to the day the release signed those acts brought
consequences, injuries damages which continue be.
yond the date of the signing Of the document and ended
only with the death Of shonts last September it is
contended.
The damage Mrs. Thomas did to Mrs Shonts was in
the nature Of what the law recognizes respas And
the law distinctly provides for the continuance of tres
pass. In this case the damage the Thomas did
continued day after day through series of years. 1t
began before this release signed and it continued
after the release signed Therefore even if the docu
ment protected Mrs Thomas UP to 1917 the full
quences Of her continued life with Shonts and the dam
ages to his wife are open to suit from 1917 to the day
And returning again to the vital question of what
was the consideration which Mrs Shopts received her
compensation in the contract. This release which Mrs
Shonts gave to Mrs. Thomas signed the day
that Shonts and his wife signed separation and main
enance agreement Mrs Shonts says that her husbands
lawyers notified her that Shonts would not sign the sep
araton agreement providing for paying her debts and
assuring her an allowance to live oneUNLESS MRS.
SHONTS SIGNED. THE AGREEMENT PROMISING
NEVER TO BOTHER AMANDA THOMAS.
But the separation agreement a vicious document
which allowed Shonts his freedom to maintain unholy
lations with the Thomas The separation agree
ment was improper and against public morals If Mrs
Thomas release from damages contingent upon and
part OF the improper bargain Shonts driving with
his wife that June day in 1917 then all negotiations
and both agreements vicious, illegal and void
But this is not all If Mrs. Shonts, not realizing the
nature Of the contract Shonts asking her to
sign, agreed to 1t because her only of secur
ing bread and butter and clothes and If Shonts threatened
her with refusing to do anything for her support unless
she ALSO SIGNED the release for Mrs Thomasthen the
two documents signed under duress by threat by
coercion; and they are both null and void.
And yet one more important thing. Ii it Is main-
tanned that the agreement protecting Mrs Thomas was
really part Of the separation agreement between Shons
and his wife and that the real consideration which Mrs.
Shonts received for signing this protection to Mrs Thomas
the payment of her debts and the maintenance allow
from her husbandthen there here confession OF
Mrs Thomass powerful influence upon Shonts powerful