22   mnunn. nmroarnu.
1879. With regard to the other suggestion, there seems to have been
little novelty or change in the relations between the complainant
and Ralston consequent upon the form of marriage had in January,
1880. It is very evident that this form, for several years past, had
been regarded by both parties as superfluous. Ralston knew that no
children would follow this unholy union. Nor is it unnatural that
he should decline to bestow all of his ample fortune upon a wife whose
character had degraded him and destroyed every hope of reformation
and every anticipation that he might regain that position in life to
which by birth and fortune he was entitled. He provided amply for
her comfort. But, in the opinion of the court, it would have been far
more unnatural and shocking to the moral sense had he forgotten the
friend of his childhood, his guardian and his trusted friend, and the
` children of that friend, to whose affectionate memory he had committed
his tomb, and for whom he had promised his mother to provide, in
order to bestow his magnihcent patrimony upon a woman whom he
made his wife, but whom he had found a harlot in a brothel.
That Turpin had influence with Ralston is not to be disputed, but
there is no evidence that the influence has been abused. That Ralston
trusted him is unquestionable, but there is in the record before us no
betrayal of that trust. If there is evidence of undue influence upon
Ralston, that influence was exerted by the complainant. Her influ-
ence with him was imperious. After four years of illicit life with
him she marries him. Had he desired the marriage, it would have
been solemnized at an earlier day. She knew that to marry him
was to ruin him. She knew that from that moment he was a social
leper. She knew that no decent man would take her husband to his
_` home; that no pure woman would touch the hand that had been
joined in wedlock with hers,—and yet she married him, and no pro-
test of friend or family could swerve her from her purpose. Her mo-
4 tive must have been sordid in the extreme. Had she been a pure
woman who had surrendered her person to her lover, and then sought .
wedlock as the means of redress for her wrong, this court would applaud
and approve her motive. But when she met Ralston it was as a pub-
. lic prostitute. But she ma1·ried him, and now she sets up, in avoid-
ance of the bounty to the children of his friend, habits of intemper-
ance which were encouraged and fostered in the orgies of the bawdy-
houses where he found her.
Other arguments, some of them of great force, (as, for instance, the
fact that eight months after the execution of the first two deeds, which
the complainant attacks, she formally joined in the execution of the
' third deed, and thus is estopped,) have been advanced for the defend-
ants. The court, however, prefers to place its decision on the broad
grounds—First, not only does the complainant fail to show such weak-
ness of mind on the part of Ralston as will invalidate the deeds, but
the evidence demonstrates that at the time they were made hewas
abundantly capable to dispose of his property as he might think