Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-08-31
DEGREES OF DIVORCE.
CALIFORNIA THE PARADISE OF FREE
LOVERS.
How Divorce was Obtained in This
State without the Knowledge OF
the Plaintiff in the Case.

the Plaintiff in the Case.
1t has recently been developed. in strang
manner. that the laws of California upon tn
subject of divorce maks this State success
full rival with the famous reputation acquire
BIZ Chicago and the State of Indiana upon th
subject Of obtaining divorces by and for an,
parties who may SO desire. This State. as il
all other things. goes one better. and does no
require the consent of either party, nor evel
| their knowledge of the transaction. In thu
relation that follows, it viii be seen that thi
has been recently strikingly illustrated, ans
that under the present statutes OF thi'
State, divorce can be obtained with
out the knowledge of the party VINO
is named in the proceedings as plaintiff,
without the issue of summons or other notice
given, and as natural sequence, that hus'
band and wife, maintaining the most happy
domestic relations, are liable to be divorced
from each other without the least notice OF
suspicion of such a transaction upon the part
of either. To make this text statement still
clearer. and to illustrate the charge, it may
be more explicitly stated that couple can
easily be divorced without the knowledge,
consent or desire of either party.as by TINS
modus operandi: The party desiring
TO DO THIS WRONG
Can write TO an attorney TO bring an action
in behalf of Jane Doe, or Mary Roe, or Kate
Brown. and sign James, Mary's or Hates
name to the letter, aud furnish brlet OF
facts, and names of witnesses to certain acts.
The attorney, with no other warrant upon
which to act, and without further inquiry,
can go into Court, as that in Soiano county,
for instance, and being an officer OF the
Court. file a complaint reciting the facts, etc.,
with an Endorsement of acknowledgment OF
service and waiver, ETC., by the defendant
furnished, perhaps, by the party putting up
the Job, and thereupon call IN the witnesses,
prove the facts, and take decree-all, pro-
vided that the Judge assumes that the par
ties are in Court, and that he has jurisdiction
of them, simply upon the appearance OF the
attorney. and the filing Of the papers, no
proof being taken of identity, or of author
ization of that officer. Such would be an ex-
IRENE case; but under the law of California,
as it is, it would not be an extreme case for
husband to engineer a divorce suit through
Court. with himself as defendant, without the
knowledge Of the wife, or for the wife TO do
likewise, as is clearly shown by the following
narrative.
The personality in the story is preserved
only because the incidents serve, in strlk-
ing way, 20 illustrate the defects OF the law.
Whatever of sc9ndalous character the MARIA
tive presents or the persons having part In
the transaction, both the scandals and the
persons occupy a very subordinate relation to
the main object had in view by presenting
the whole case here.
There has been known for several years in
this city one William Youngs, recognized as
q married man, having a wife in bust
ness as a fashionable dressmaker on
Sixth street, in this city This fact was also
sworn to by him and by his wife, Mary
Youngs, while testifying upon oath in an In
vestigation held by a secret society in this
city. Reports of his practices have been I'M
savory, and Mrs. Youugs, OF this city, as Is
known, formerly talked of applying for q
divorce from him. He, however, finally took
the matter into his own hands, and without
troubling himself about his previous
relations with Mrs. Youngs in Sacramento,
married frankie Z. Busby, formerly OF
this city. and for a time cast his fortune with
the last named partner for life" This made
too much of complication In matters matri.
monial for placid waters, and the sequel
shows that he who proves untrue to ore Will
do SO in turn to another.
DIVORCE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
PLAINTIFF.
The facts as related by C. 7. Jones, coun-
sci for frankie Z. YOungs, are as follows On
the 18th instant, woman of prepossesslng
appearance, Mrs. frankie Z. Youngs, called at
his Office. and obtaining an interview, intro
ducsd herself as Mrs. VIM. Youngs, and de-
sired to know whether it was possible for
complaints to be fled for divorce By her
against her husband without her knowledge.
aud was answered emphatically that there
could not. She said she had suspicion that
a complaint had been filed at Fairfield, the
county seat of Solano county, from the fact
of conversations she had had with her hus-
band, and as she had seen him there on the
day previous with an attorney. While the
woman waited Mr. Jones telegraphed to the
Clerk of the Superior Court at Fairfield to
know if such a complaint had been filed
there. and received the following reply :
"Yes. Case tried yesterday and divorce
granted" This came apparently like shock
to her, and she at once engaged MIR. Jones as
her counsel to institute the necessary pro-
ceedings to set the divorce aside, and to
prosecute all parties who might be liable for
the wrong done her.
She then stated in heightened detail to her
counsel the history of her first acquaintance
and her relations with Youngs, which Is
briefly as follows She had formed slight
acquaintance with Youngs before she moved
to San Francisco from this city few years
since, but she was not then aware OF his be-
ing married with the Mrs. Youngs of this
city.
MARRIAGE AND DEsERTIoN.
In 1880 he went to San Francisco, where
they became engaged, and upon the strength
of her money went to her friends at SYRIA
cuse. n. Y, and were there married on the
9;h of September of that year. They then
went to England, and when there Youngs
borrowed diamond ring from this wife, worth
S175, and pawned it for el5. They soon af-
forwards returned to New York, where he
talked of trying to get into business, he hav-
ing borrowed $500 from her-all the money
she had left-and gave her his note for it.
Immediately after obtaining this he proposed
that she go to her people at Syracuse and
make a visit while he was seeking employ
msnt She at once suspected that he wanted
To get back to California and abandon her,
and suggested it to him, but he protested and
said there was no inducement in the world
that would ever bring him back to California.
He finally got down upon his knees and as
serted in the solemn terms OF mystic
oath his devotion to her, and that
believed him, and went to her friends,
but receivingno letters from hiU, investi gated
the cause and ascertained that on the day
s9cceeding her leaving New York City e
departed for California.
Left without means. she borrowed money
from her relatives and followed him back to
the Golden State, and found him finally at
san Francisco on the 2Ssh Of January last.
When confronted by her he made all kinds Of
excuses. and claimed that he really was not
responsible for what he had done, as he had
been drinking and was partially out OF his
mind. Womae.lilie, she overlooked his short
comings and they resumed marital relations
taking rooms at 233 O'Farrell street he
procured position in the establishment Of
Lang & Co. liqnor merchants on Dupont
street. and remained there until April, when
the Mrs. Younes Of Sacramento, as Young;
told frankie, came there and proposed tC
have him
MANIPULATE HER STOCKS,
And leave his second wife, frankie Z
Youues. which arrangement he acceded to,
a difficulty had already been produced
between Youngs and his wife frankie, anc
the latter took rooms at 703 Market street
while Youngs obtained apartments at the
/ Union Square House. Mrs. Youugs, OF Sacra
mento. also Occupying different room at tue
same house. YouDgs proceeded to manipu'
/ late the stocks before mentioned. upon th'
! agreement that he was to have one-half o.
/ the profits accruiug. Mrs. Youngs, OF Sacra
mento, subsequently returned to this city
| Youngs having increased the value OF TIT
! investments TO IS. 600. proceeded to draw GU
one-half of the profits. when he found ina