12 The plaintiff by his attorney John Willett for his complaint herein alleges as follows: FIRST: Upon information and belief that heretofore and on the 2d day of February, 1914, at the Hotel St. George in the Borough of Brooklyn, Kings County an alleged marriage took place between the above named defendant and one Charles W. Scofield. SECOND: Upon information and belief that no marriage license was obtained from the City Clerk of the Borough of Brooklyn where the defendant then resided, before said marriage was performed nor was any such license delivered to the clergyman officiating thereat before such marraige was performed. THIRD: Upon information and belief that at the time of said marriage the said Charles W. Scofield was eighty years of age, was sickened unto death, was weak and enfeebled and was mentally deranged and delirious and was incapable of entering into the said marriage or of giv ing his consent thereto, and that said Charles W. Scofield died on said day at or about the time of said marriage, and that the said marriage was never consummated and that the said Charles W. Scofield died without recovering his senses or mentality, and that said marriage was a fraud upon said Charles W. Scofield and upon this plaintiff, and that said marriage was null and void. FOURTH: Upon information and belief that at the time of said marriage Charles W. Scofield was forced and constrained to consent thereto by force and duress of the defendant and divers other persons present at that time, and that at no time whatever did said Charles W. Scofield and defendant cohabit as husband and wife. FIFTH: Upon information and belief that the plaintiff is the grandson of the said Charles W. Scofield and is his sole heir at law and next of kin and has an interest to avoid said marriage by reason of his relationship and his being entitled to succeed to the property of said Charles W. Scofield as his sole heir at law and next of kin. 14 WHEREFORE the plaintiff herein prays that the marriage between said Charles W. Scofield and 15 the defendant Jean Winifred Fitzsimmons, claiming to be Jean Winifred Scofield, be declared null and void, and the plaintiff have such other and different relief as may be equitable with costs and disbursements of this action. JOHN WILLETT, 64 Wall Street, New York City. John Willett being duly sworn deposes and says: that he is the attorney for the plaintiff in the above entitled action, that he resides in the Borough of Manhattan, City and County of New York, and has his office at No. 64 Wall Street in said Borough and County: that he has read the foregoing complaint and knows the contents thereof and that the same is true to the knowledge 17 of deponent, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. That the reason this verification is not made by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is not in the County of New York, which is the County where deponent resides, and that the sources of deponent's knowledge, and the grounds of his belief are derived from investigations made by deponent in this matter, from conversations had with Mrs. Mary O. Scofield, the mother and agent of the plaintiff. 18 Sworn to before me this JOHN WILLETT. 3d day of March, 1914. The defendant by her attorneys, Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, answering the complaint herein, alleges as follows: FIRST: She denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs Second and Third of the complaint herein. SECOND: She denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph Fourth of the complaint herein, except that she admits that at no time did said Charles W. Scofield and the defendant cohabit as husband and wife. THIRD: She denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph Fifth of the complaint herein, except that she admits that the plaintiff is the grandson of Charles W. Scofield. WHEREFORE the defendant demands judgment dismissing the complaint herein, with costs. GUGGENHEIMER, UNTERMYER & MARSHALL, Attorneys for Defendant, Office and P. O. Address, 37 Wall Street, Borough of Manhattan, New York City. 21 1 SS: City and County of New York. ( Irwin Untermyer being duly sworn, says: That he is a member of the firm of Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, the attorneys for the defendant in the above entitled action. That he resides in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, and has his office at No. 37 Wall Street, in said Borough and City; that he has read the foregoing answer and knows the contents thereof, 23 and that the same is true to the knowledge of deponent except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true. That the reason this verification is not made by the defendant is that the defendant is not in the County of New York, which is the County where deponent resides, but is in the City of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania. That the sources of deponent's knowledge and the grounds of his belief are derived from investigations made by deponent in this matter and from conversations with persons having knowledge of the facts. 24 IRWIN UNTERMYER. Sworn to before me this 2d day of April, 1914. Raphael Brill, Notary Public No. 241, New York County. |