"UNCLE'S TROUBLES
JOHN LEFFLER'S LIFE MADE PUBLIC
HOW HE LIVED WITH MARY BUCK FOR ELEVEN YEARS, DURING WHICH SHE HAD TWO CHILDREN, BUT WAS NEVER MARRIED.
THE ROMANTIC STORY OF A ONCE WEALTHY CONTRACTOR AT ROCHESTER, NEW YORK
From a legal standpoint, the finest case ever tried in this county was the case of Elizabeth Leffler vs. John Leffler, tried Saturday by Hill, Hubbard, and Winn for the plaintiff, Peaslee and Woods for the defense.It was also a case which has the tinge of romance and sensationalism in it and there are few stories so interesting as this.
Eleven years ago there lived in the city of Rocheter, N.Y., John Leffler, now known here as 'Uncle', a wealth contractor, an inventor and a citizen of prominence, well known and highly respected as one of the city's best men. Not only was he a man of high standing in business circles, but also in society. With a handsome and accomplished wife to preside over his household, and to act superbly in the capacity of hostess, and a finely educated daughter, he became established in the ranks of society, impregnable to any concerning whose honor might be a question.
Also eleven years ago, this same respected man became deeply attached to a young and handsome girl named Mary Buck. So thoroughly enamored by her charms was he that he broke his matrimonial vows, was charged by his wife with adultery and she left him. The outcome was a suit for divorce by the wife. While the suit was pending, Leffler suddenly left Rochester in company with Mary Buck. Mrs. Leffler was granted the divorce and $2500 alimony. All efforts to trace Leffler were of no avail.
Mary Buck had an uncle, Michael Koch, living in Brunersburg, near this city, and the two went to his residence. To her uncle and aunt, she introduced Leffler as her husband, saying he had been a widower and that they had been married but two weeks. Leffler confirmed this story, and they spent about two months with Mr. and Mrs. Koch. They came to this city, rented rooms and later went to housekeeping living as man and wife. They have lived her nearly eleven years and, in that time, had two children, one of which was born dead and the other boy now living with one side paralyzed. Intellectually, he is strong, being bright and smart, but will never be able to accomplish much which will require physical strength.
(* The photo is NOT Mary Buck, but an anonymous young lady dressed as she might be in 1887.)
In the summer of '87, Leffler's divorced wife ascertained that he was living in this city and that he was in the possession of some property. She sent Mr. A. J. Curloch, a Rochester attorney, here to see if there was any chance of obtaining the $2500 allowed her by the court. On July 19, the attorney made a demand for the judgment, which Leffler refused.
On July 20, Leffler sold his property to Daniel Widmer for $5,000, Widmer giving him five promissory notes, payable in one, two, three, four and five years, and assuming a mortgage of $2500. He then transferred the notes to Mary Buck, supposed to be Mrs. John Leffler and was left insolvent.
The supposed wife of John Leffler who signed the deed as Mary Leffler, joined in the dower clause and was supposed to be the wife of John Leffler. Messrs. Hill and Hubbard had been authorized by Mr. Curloch to attend to the case, and later they called in Mr. John W. Winn. Nothing had been done by these attorneys before Leffler sold his property, as it was the day after the Rochester attorney visited him. After the transfer of the notes, Hill & Hubbard brought suit to declare that the sale and transfer to had been made with the intent to defraud Leffler's creditors, and asking the court to find to have been honest on Widmer's part to have the notes placed in the hands of a receiver, the money collected and applied in satisfaction of Mary Leffler's judgement.
On Saturday morning, the trial began. To the surprise of all, the plaintiff's first witness was John Leffler, the defendant
himself. HIs testimony was to the effect that he left New York state with the girl and brought her to Ohio, paying all of her expenses He admitted telling Mrs. Koch that he was married, but said it was all a joke. He said the woman had two children and he was asked if he was the father The defense objected to the question and the objection was sustained. He said that he supposed his wife had loaned him $399 eight years ago.
Michael Koch, the next witness called, did not give away further information than that which Leffler had divulged. Mrs. Koch testified that they had always lived as man and wife and that the girl always slept with Leffler. Mrs. Koch got on her mettle several times and the attorneys on both sides, the bailiff, the sheriff, deputy and judge endeavored to quiet her, but to no effect.
Mr. Hubbard then took the stand and related the story of the Rochester attorney and offered the deed to evidence with the name of Mary Leffler signed to it. He said that under the law of the State of New York, the court had granted Mrs. Leffler the right of marrying again, but had not given John Leffler that privilege, and if he married again that he could be arrested for bigamy.
The defense called Daniel Widmer who claimed that he had bought the property in good faith and had already paid off $1300 of the mortgage.
John Leffler said he had hired the woman to work for him, agreeing to pay her $4 a week and that she had worked for ten years without receiving any pay. The plaintiff's attorneys claimed that the services were incidental to an illicit cohabitation and that the contract was void. On this, they were upheld by Judge Sutphen. The court found that the sale was honest on Widmer's part, but that the transfer of notes from Leffler to his supposed wife was made with the intention to defraud his creditors. He allowed the alleged Mrs. Leffler the $390 that he had borrowed with interest for eight years. He also allowed her $500 for the support of her child. The woman did not claim this, but Judge Sutphen gave it simply through kindness. The balance of $1611 to Mrs. Leffler and he appointed S. M. Cameron, clerk of court, receiver, with instructions to hold the notes, collect them and distribute the proceeds according to his best judgement.
The defense gave notice of an appeal. Judge Sutphen said that if the defense would turn the notes over at once, he would make the appeal bond low, but if the defense held them, he would make it big enough to cover the indebtedness of Mrs. Leffler. The defense refused to turn over the notes, and he fixed the bond at $1800, more, it is thought, than Leffler would give. Mr. James Woods holds the notes at present, but the plaintiff's attorneys expect him to turn them over to Mr. Cameron soon.
John Leffler is now insolvent. It remains to be seen how his alleged wife will treat him, whether or not she will leave him and take the money or whether she will continue to live with him and divide the money to their mutual benefit
It is the same old ending to a life of crime. 'Uncle' Leffler came here a fine looking man with plenty of money. He is the inventor of the bell or rim of sewer pipes and obtained a royalty on every one made. He disposed of the rights for little or nothing, spent the money, and is today almost without a dollar. He has a daughter living in Rochester at present. She is the wife of the cashier of the German National Bank of that city and is said to be very handsome. She is highly respected, as is her mother, who also lives in Rochester.
In every feature, the case is one of the most interesting in the record of the Common Pleas court of this county." (Defiance Daily Crescent, November 12, 1888)
WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
SEE PART II
