
    Matter of the Estate of Charles H. Ward, Deceased.
    (Surrogate’s Court, Bangs County,
    May, 1906.)
    Executors and administrators—Appointment and qualifications of personal representatives — Right to administer—Surviving husband or wife — Void marriage.
    Where letters of administration were granted to a woman who claimed to be the widow of an intestate but whose marriage to him was void for the reason that she had a husband living, and where it appears that the intestate, upon discovering that fact, refused to live any longer with her and subsequently married another woman, and the latter petitions to have such letters revoked and administration granted to her, such letters will be revoked.
    Application to revoke letters of administration
    Howard O. Patterson, for petitioner.
    Martin Byrnes, for respondent.
   Church, S.

In the application to revoke letters of administration given to Jane Ward, who claimed to be the widow of the deceased, it appears that she was married a number of years ago to one Kingsbury, who subsequently became insane, and afterwards, in 1902, she intermarried with the deceased, notwithstanding that the said Kingsbury was still living. Under these circumstances her marriage to the deceased was an absolute nullity; and, upon the deceased being informed of this fact, he refused to live any longer with her and subsequently married the petitioner herein. Despite these facts, the said Jane Ward applied for letters of administration, concealing such facts from the court.

In opposition to'this proceeding, she attempts to assert that, at the time she was married to the deceased, she believed her previous husband, Kingsbury, to be dead. Her affidavit on this matter, however, merely states conclusions and does not show that she ever made any honest attempt to ascertain whether he was dead or alive. She was living with him in Brooklyn and, when he became insane, he was incarcerated in the Flatbush asylum, but it is claimed he was afterward removed to Kings Párk. It is not shown that she ever inquired from time to time as to his condition at the Flatbush asylum, nor is there any suggestion that she ever inquired as to whether he was living or dead. It appears rather, to the contrary, that upon his incarceration in such asylum she paid _ no further attention to the fact that he was her husband, but contracted her marriage with the deceased without any attempt to ascertain if she had any legal right to do so.

While this conduct was reprehensible, yet, when the fact that her first husband was living had become definitely established and the deceased had repudiated his marriage with her, her action in obtaining letters of administration-by concealing such facts was a deliberate fraud upon the court and upon the rights of the next of kin of the deceased.

The application to revoke her letters is granted, with ' fifty dollars costs, payable by the administratrix personally.

Application granted, with fifty dollars costs.  