NJ Herald newpaper, Newton, NJ dated Weds, 5 May 1886 (scorecards will be available in the lobby) Samuel L. Bevans Will A suit that has been watched with considerable interest by the people of Port Jervis and in the over-the-mountain district, has just been disposed of in the Orange county (NY) courts by Judge C. F. Brown. It was the suit of Hannah J. RUNDLE, of Montague township vs. Chas. F. VanIGWEGAN and others, as executors of the estate of Samuel L. BEVANS, deceased. The following is a history of the case as given by the Port Jervis Gazette: In the year 1864 Samuel L. Bevans resided near Hainesville in Montague township on the homestead farm of his father, and in that year was married to Miss Hannah SHAY, a well-known and respected resident of that township. The marriage did not prove to be a happy one and we find that in the following year the couple separated, Bevans taking up residence in Indiana, leaving his wife behind. After remaining in Indiana about two years Bevans obtained a divorce in the courts of that State from his New Jersey wife and came east, taking up residence in Port Jervis. He went into business there and prospered, and about the year 1870 married Miss Lavinia WALKER, a highly respected young lady of that village. He continued to live with her up to the time of his death, which occurred in June, 1883. He bequethed his property to his nephew, Will Bevans, of that village, in trust of his wife. His second wife died a few months after his decease. After the marriage of Mr. Bevans to Miss Walker, his first wife, Miss Shay, was married in 1874 to Peter V. RUNDLE, of Hainesville. At the time of her second marriage to Rundle, Mrs. Bevans, nee Shay, informed the minister who married her that she was divorced from Bevans. Upon the death of Bevans, Mrs Rundle was informed by her counsel that the Indiana divorce obtained by Bevans was not legal and that she was entitled to her dower in her first husband's estate. She accordingly brought suit to recover her dower right and acting on the suggestion of her counsel (she had borne children to Rundle in the meantime) she was again married to Rundle in order to legitimize her children. This second marriage to Rundle was performed after the suit was commenced. Councel for Will Bevans, the heir of Samuel L. Bevans, contested the suit on the ground that the late Samuel L. Bevans had obtained a divorce from his first wife and that in any event she was stopped by her marriage with Rundle from her drawing her dower right in his estate. A vast amount of testimony and a large amount of documentary evidence was submitted. Judge Brown holds that Mrs Rundle was the only lawful wife of Samuel L. Bevans at the time of his death; that the Indiana divorce obtained by him from his first wife is absolutely void; that Mrs Rundle is entitled to dower right in all his property and that the fact of Mrs Bevans marrying Rundle was a matter over which the court had no control, and that no act of hers could create a lawful divorce, and concluded that the plantiff must have judgement with costs. Mr. Bevans left an estate valued at about $20,000 and under this decision Mrs Rundle will be entitled to half of the personal and a third of the real estate. Bevans left no children by either Mrs Rundle or his second wife. It will thus be seen that both husband and wife were married a second time and that the second marriage of each is declared illegal. Probably this case will be appealed. Probably, Cathy DiPietro listowner NJSussex-L