| OCR Text |
Show A KAjiII.V IHFUCUIiTV. Tno III in Ijij (lalm to the Troprrly of a llirravl llailuuil. A nue was called on In the Third illtlrlct court llils nririilin; which li-vl It been proccvdeil with woul I prolnbly hive lieen prolucllvu of Rome Inter vtlng facia a the Usllnuny or the wltnr-isea developed. It vial nn action brought by ono I.llitbeth Ilrunker, a plural wife, against another woman ale? named LllxaUtli llruuker, the hgalwlfoof ono rhomaa Ilrunker, now deceased. The ptalnll 11 nought tu havo a decrto of the court ndju Iglng lalutl(i to Imi the rightful owner In fee of the following follow-ing proml-as. Ilrglnnlng nt the northwest north-west norm r of lot (1, block 41, plat II, Halt Like Clly survey, running theuco east 1 rods, theuco luuth 2U ml", tlitncoWMf.') rods, th-nco north 1'U rudstolacuvf l-rginnlng. It Iscou-tended Iscou-tended (hat thedefctilant has no right or tltlo therein, mil ilalntlir I rays therifore that her claim tat declarud null and vol I. l'lalntirf. In her complaint, slates that for thlrly four years iat the hat lieeuln iasmssIoii and entitled tnoan-er-hlpof the land lu question. During the )ar 189 she allritev, Thomas llrunt.tr, by mi ana of fraud an I de-cell, de-cell, InJuoe-i her to drink whisky and other Intoxicating llpiora to auth an extent as to rendtr her incspabloof unJerstiiidlng what alio wat doing, and while In mat condition caused her to execute In hliil n deed for tho land above described Infee simple; that ho nevcrat any period during his llfttlnio claimed this proiirtyor undertook Id Mist her from iwtaevlou. I'lalnllir, throughout the ost thirty-four years, had a!il all the taxes thereon, riio dileud.ut, claiming to I lliu widow of riiomas Iltunker, had, byriAsunof tome rucenltuga recently taken In the I'robnte court of Hall Laku county, cauocd the property lu controversy to Ui Ht oir to her absolutely lu fee as her own. In her answer, the defendant denies that plalnllir Is enlltlul to any pirtlou of Ilio property, that any fraud whatever what-ever had been ractlrod, u act forth I y i lalntlff, or that the deed was rocured by any oilier than her own voluntary act. Hhe alleges, further, that lain. tlfl was a lolygamou wife cf the late Thoinaa llruuker, and by his iiermla-slon iiermla-slon slrol ly llynl on the rtral-rs In question, without any right lo owner-tnlp. owner-tnlp. Hhe denies that i lalnllir over laid any taxes on the rutlly. Tho claim of lalntlir wm thtrifore without nuy right whatevt r. Judge Judd, whoapiaiaretl for the I laln'll! (the 1 lural wife of thu lie-cevtd) lie-cevtd) sild thero was a crosa-ia in nlalut lllnl, of hlili he had no Lnowlnlge until Just now, set king to quiet the title, ami he aikcd, eoute-qucntly, eoute-qucntly, thut tho original foini lalnt be taken aa the answer thereto; If the filalutlll failed, the ilecrco to go oil the cross conn lalnt. It was stated by J u lgnMarsliall(who appeared on (he cthtr side) (but the dtfeudAnl l.llzaUth llruuker illed on the Dili of January In the j reMuit year, and heaaked thai the name of Henry II unktr, the a linlulstrator, be substituted sub-stituted In the action. Judge Ju Id tald I o was not aware of thu fact of the dtfeudaut'a death until now. In the course of a conversation v. hlcli followed bctwriu JuJge ano and counsel, hit honor ex leered an o) Inlon that veu If a decree t ru oh talned through thu a Imlnlstrator the chance wero It would uot bo worth anything. Lventually tho case wm continued forthettrm, luorlertu enable Judge Judd to substitute thu names of the helrt at law, minor children, lu thu place of thu dtci ased defendant. |
