A QUESTION FOR SOLOMON.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1498, 12 October 1886, Page 4

A QUESTION FOR SOLOMON.

A'- very disputed will case has been before the Supreme Court in Melbourne. 1 Fictiorl, ’after all, is not more extraordinaireiithab fact. The circum--stances show a wonderfully lax observation of the manfidgerlaWKl /S'uttdn hfiktried his first '«ifb in 1858. She had originally been the wife of James Stone, of Tasmania. Stone after living fifteenjpte&rs? with her, eloped with another \frdmah and went to England. She thereupon marrisd one' Gh'apmatt)7jvfihb’■ ■•* afterwards bfecf*rh4'‘Mi4*Siitron.‘‘ f ßi\t it is asserted that Stone Aas still alive at the time of. these naafriagea, which were thus ; illeg4U> Mti fetohe lived with Sutton two years, when she left hiip. This was.in 1860. In' 18'6,2'' Suttbb 1 '’maiir’ie'd' 'Mary. Delaney, ; Mrs 'Stone bel|^ Mary Delaney. lived,* S'ntt6n v) 'ninti' years and hlttt'arid ieiitVoff to California with liidtHer man 1 , atid it is believed she is still alive,there. Sutton was deserted 5 by Mary Delaney in 1877, and after seven years, ho married'again ; this time Lena Wark was the chosen one;Mrs Stonephis'first wife was by this time dead, but’ £lary J Delaney, his third wife, was alive in California. Sutton himself died' six months after his marriage to Lena Wark, who fit, may bo added,'has married again. Who was Sutton’s wife? was the question the Court was askedfjio unravel in the interests of a nephew, wKo, if Lena Wark was not a legal wife; sets the benefit of the will. He has had three months granted to him to procure further evidence; 4and has a : very Extraordinary task before him, one would siy. The story is an amazing instance of the vicissitudes of colonial life..!