The Washington times., 1920-05-16

does not seem to reveal any really serious fatal final
for the assumption that Shonts really through
with his wife.
And here again the law maintains that is to be
sumed that family quarrels not of permanent apd
enduring nature The law expects that estrangement
between husband and wife is but temporary The law
contemplates the natural and the probable thing is
that husband and wife, especially where there chill
dren, will come together again.
Thus even if it can be shown that Shons was sepa-
rated his wife and terms of strained relations in
1911 law provides and the courts have held that the
wife has the right suppose that the husbands affections
will be revived and reconciliation is held always to be
possible.
Mrs. Shonts also is able to show that Mr.. shonts
proposed various times that there should be reconca
tons and that she constantly ready to be reconcled
to her husband and her wifey relations again.
But Mrs Shonts always insisted that her husband must
first break his relations with Mrs. Thomas and 1T was
this stipulation each time when it to definite
understanding that interviewed to prevent the reconca
tion. Amanda barred the way.
The law will not sustain the contention Of Mrs.
Thomas that ShontS's affections permanently
tranged before the year 1908 the year 1911 Even if
it were possible prove that Mr. Shonts had hopeeSsy
disagreed finally and forever with his wife because OF
the marriage of the daughter Theodora to the French
duke-a trivial at best-yet accepting this
preense the fact still remains that Mrs. Thomas had
tered the life Shonts before the disagreement the
marriage of the daughter to the foreign nobeman.
It has been pointed out that Amanda Thomas knew
there would be day of reckoning for her and she and
her lawyers did their best to prepare for it. The release
from Mrs Shonts the first important thing that
But there were other things to be thought OF. How
about Mr. Shonss furniture and rugs and carpets and
dishes and pots and pansf Nothing too small to be
made secure for Amanda.
But how she to get hold of them so securely that
the widow could get them away from herf Could the
lawyers fix that up for her somehow And this what
happened: In affidavit filed with the Surrogate by
Mrs Shonts she that her husband died in his apart
ment at No. $50 Park avenue.
"And that in said apartment Mr.. Shonts had large
and valuable collection of furniture and imported rugs
and paintings of the value of upward Of fifty thousand
dollars ($50O00), which your deponent (Mrs Shonts)
has been informed have been removed from said apart
ment occupied by the deceased without any authority of
any person competent to authorize the said removal
"And this deponent is informed and verify believes
that one Amanda Thomas has removed from property
belonging to deceased and located Philadelphia all
Of the furniture and household effects belonging to the
property and that said removal made by
called Joseph Young and7a man called William, both
negroes who acting, pretending to act for Mrs.
Thomas"
Yes the furniture gone. Mrs. Thomas had not
waited for Shonts to be in his grave week before she
hustled all this outfit into storage-vanload after
load What right had she to itf The lawyers had 1t all
fixed up
In answer to the widows bewldermcnt at finding her
husbands town home and country place stripped the
Thomas produces this bill Of sale from the dying
Sbonts;
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That
THEODORE p. SHoNTs, of the City of New York.
for and consideration Of the Of Dollar (soo1
to me In hand paid by AMANDA c. THOMAS. of the
same place. and Of other good and valuable eonsdera
tons receipt Of all Of which hereby acknowledged
have barganed and sold and do hereby SELL assign
fsr and unto ths said AMANDA c. THOMAS