Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-08-31

was violent, hysterical and altogether mol
eompos mentis. In that state she left th:
city In San Francisco Mr.. Jones has severa
times last and this week called to see her
He reports her still crazed. Only once she
recognized him, and then moaninsly cried
out, holding her hands over her head, "They
told me I'd feel better if I drank it. ]
signed the paper you told me not to. What
am | arrested for? I've been asleep for two
or three days" At other times she appeared
to fear Jones, and her sister says she talks OF
the strangest things and cries out about ar
rests and officers and lawyers.
AT THE HOTEL.
Inquiry has developed that Saturday night
the woman did go to the shop of Mrs.
Youngs, there signed the release, and re-
ceived S175, brought in by J-street mer-
chant at the request of Mrs. Youngs
of Sacramento. That gentleman says
she refused to sign for some time. He
had nothing to do with it but pay
over the money for Mrs. Youngs From the
proprietors of the American Eagle Hotel it
is ascertained that the woman came flor the
first and only time) to that hotel on Monday,
the 22d, at 10 A. NJ, escorted by William
Youngs. He had previously taken room
there, to which he brought her. They re.
manned in il several hours. The landlord
supposed them to be man and wife. Youngs
finally left there. The woman left her room
and sought the landlady, and told her all her
troubles. She denounced the divorce case as
3 fraud. She was in dazed condition.
She complained bitterly of the treatment she
received. Finally she hailed a hack and left.
The proprietors found in her room glass
with a suspicious mixture in it, and the same
has been turned over to District Attorney
Buckley, to have its true contents ascer-
tanned.
THE PAPERS.
Last Friday a representative of the
RECORD. UNION went to Fairfield. to see the
papers in the case (having heard rumors rela
tive to the matter), and to find out who
swore to the complaint, but ascertained
that there was no verifcation. The com.
plant was properly entitled In the Superior
Court of Solano county, Frankie Z. Youngs
VS.: William Youngs." 1t set out that the
parties were married at Salina. n. Y, Sep
TENDER O. $780, and had resided in California
the necessary length of time to give the
Court jurisdictions. That in December, 1880,
in San Francisco, defendant was guilty of
a crime against the marital relation, but it is
30 described as to leave it in doubt as to
whether it was adultery or worse. A second
count alleges adultery in January, 1881, by
defendant, in Sacramento. A third count Is
like the first, and names both San Francisco
and Sacramento Another alleges plaintiff S
non. consent to the acts. The complaint is
in Hinksons handwriting, and signed by him
as attorney for plaintiff. In the same hand
it is Endorsed, "Due service of the foregoing
complaint is hereby admitted, the summons
hereby received. and defendant herein stipu-
lates to plead herein in ten days" This was
signed civilian Youngs," and presumably
I'll
complaint was fled July 23d-i. e., service
was admitted prior to the action being COM
menced. No summons was ever issued IL
the case.
THE TRIAL.
Nothing further took place at Fairfield in
regard to the case until August 10th, except
that in the meantime NJ. L. G. O'Brien,
Of Sacramento, counsel purporting to be for
wrote TO the Judge and asked that
the case be set for trial. At this time the in
dorsement of waiver of summons etc., on the
back of the complaint, had not been discov-
cred, and reply was sent that no summons
had been called for, and the case was not at
issue. The attorney wrote back, calling at
tention to the Endorsement of waiver, but no
time for trial was set, and nothing further
done in the matter until the 10th of August.
On that day w. R. Hinkson and O'Brien APP
peared at Fairfield, before Judge John NJ.
Gregory, and called up the case. Hlnk
son stated that he had been away
for his health, and not expecting
to return in time for trial, had requested
O'Brien to take charge of the case. O'Brien
then assumed.chargs, and had Hinkson sworn
to prove the handwriting of VIM. Youngs
TO the Endorsement, waving summons. etc.
No answer being in, defendants default was
entered. An immediate trial was requested
md granted. Hinkson accounted for the
ABSENCE of Mrs. Youngs, the so-called plain
Tiff, by incidentally remarking to the Court
hat she was
IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES,
And was unable to defray the expenses of
herself and witnesses to attend the trial, and
that she also disliked to appear in Court and
make great publicity of the matter.
Fred. A. Preston, keeper of the Olive
Branch Saloon, in Washington, Yolo county,
who accompanied Hinkson and O'Brien to
Fairfield, was sworn and testified that he had
known the plaintiff four years and the de-
PENDANT nine years that he was intimately
acquainted with both, and remembered the
time when they were married that they
went to Europe together after their marriage;
that they returned to this State last Deem
Der, and, he understood, separated in Feb
ruary last. He testified to the alleged
adultery of Youngs, both with woman on
Sixth street, in Sacramento, and others on
Second street, at which places witness had
seen him, and had personal knowl-
edge of the fact charged. The woman on
Sixth street, he said, was a married woman,
and he did not therefore wish to give her
name. He also stated that defendant had
admitted to him that he had COM
mitted the offense charged in the complaint.
~. 70 /, h
sence of witnesses he had expected would be
present. he would have to call Hinkscn as
witness. He did not like to do so as he was
an attorney in the case, but he didn't think
there was any improperly in doing SO under
the circumstances. Hinkson then took the
stand, as if reluctantly, and as if he had not
intended to testify. He said he very much
disliked to testify, but as witnesses had failed
to appear as expected, he would do so. He
then testified that he knew the plaintiff per-
sonally; knew her before she left Sacra-
mento didn't remember the time when she
was married; he had personal knowledge OF
committing the cffense charged;
defendant had also admitted it to him.
O'Brien stated that he expected more wit
nesses but was disappointed, and with puz-
zledlo look as if he could not get over it why they
did not come, finally said that he would submit
the case with the understanding that If the
testimony presented was discovered insutfi-
Gent further time should be granted to pro-
duce other witnesses. The case closed Just
before recess. On coming in of the Court
recess the Judge signed the decree pre-
sented by O'Brieu. The Court found the
case properly and regularly brought on and
the allegations of the complaint sustained by
testimony free from all legal exceptions for
admissibility and suficiency.
Then followed the usual decree of divorce
ment.
oBRIEN's STORY.
III. i. G.. O'Brien, the attorney who tried
the case before the Superior Court of Solano
county, was called upon for the story of his
with the case. He was frank and
willing to tell all he knew. On many of the
material points there was no conflict between
his story and the relation Of facts already
given. O'Brien denied emphatically that he
had any part in the matter which was not
authorized by the statute law of the State,
and that was not in corsonance with permits
sible practice before the Courts; but he ad-
mitted that under the statute as
it is it is easy for rascally at
torney to secure a decree of divorce
without the knowledge of the plaintiff.
In this connection it may be stated that sew
eral attorneys of prominence have expressed
their surprise at the practice outlined, and
laughed at the idea that complaint in dl-
vorce case need not be verified. and heoted at
e. e suggestion that case of divorce can be shot
through Court without proper and positive
proof of the identity of the parties, but on
being confronted with the facts and the law.
have, after expressing their surprise, desired
some one to take them out and kick them to
death for their ignorance. In every case they
- IA