OCR Text |
Show A DDS ONE MORE DIVORCE QUIRK Decision Made by Referee May Be pood Law, But , The dowager duchess of Manchester Manches-ter left her residuary estate to her son, the present duke, and his wife $1,050,000 In trust with an annual Income of $183,000. When the will was signed the wife of the duke was the ' former Ilelena Zlmmermann, daughter of a Cincinnati millionaire. Now a referee appointed by a Supreme Su-preme court Justice In Manhattan decides that the present duchess Is the beneficiary, the former Kathleen Ethel Dawes, of Greenwich, Conn., whom Manchester married the day tils first wife's divorce decree was effective, December 17, 1031. . The referee, attempting to Inter-. : pret British law, holds that the rights of the former duchess ended with her divorce. "The provision should not be considered as referring to the particular person who was the duke's wife' at the time of the execution of the will." So the dowager duchess Is In the legal picture as bestowing half benefits bene-fits in an estate of nearly two millions, mil-lions, not on the "wife," the mother of her grandchildren, whom she knew, but on some unknown woman whom the duke might later marry. Most reasoners will hold that the Intention In-tention of the testator is Ignored. Incidentally, the fortune Is largely American In origin. Consuelo, the dowager, was the daughter of An tonio Yznaga de Valle, of Ravens-wood, Ravens-wood, La. Apparently the mother had some Idea of the marital instability of her dacal son, for she granted the use and enjoyment of a lot of family Jewels to Tthe wife for the time being" be-ing" of the duke "during her marriage mar-riage with my eon." In these days complications of this sort may happen hap-pen In the best, of famiLIes. Interna tlonallsm Is rarely Involved. Whether Wheth-er the report of this referee will be affirmed by the court we can only gyess. It has a keen Interest for eluQents of modern divorce law. Brooklyn Eagle. |