Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-08-26
IL feet; depth of hold, 81 feet. The craft is

| SIHOk cfhLs. CA-OcCI6JdIJ VI otdSC IcNh
| Marcus d. Boruck and Senator Trsylor being
the witnesses in this case. The cause of com
| plant is as follows James f. Murphy, &
gardener, was an applicant for the position Of
gardener to the Capitol grounds in Sacra
rnentc. Alexander Weed, the street con
tractor, wrote letter to Mr.. Boruck. Their
Secretary of the Senate, informing him thai
Murphywas a dishonest man, not fit to be
appointed to such responsible position. In
the letter Weed also expressed the belief
that he could prove his assertions by 8
Republican from this city. He took the
liberty to address Mr.. Boruck, believing he
did not know the real character of Murphy,
and besides promised to take steps to acquaint
the Governor and the Secretary of State oil
some of MGrphy's business transactions, to
prove that he is entirely untrustworthy
Murphy claims that but for the communica.
ton he would have secured the appointment
at the hands of the State Capitol Commission,
The defendant Weed, in his answer, alleges
that in some business transactions with Muir
ply he was grossly overcharged, and in the
case OF Senator Traylor he charged him q
cents for every load of loan, where's he
(Murphy) obtained it at 10 cents the load, in
this way also making overoharges. The de.
PENDANT furthermore pleading justification.
claims that the communication was privi
The SANDER suit of Theresa Schaffer against
Henry Fisher for $1,000 damages is on trial
in the Superior Court The defendant and
plaintiffs husband, George, are drivers foI
the jackson Brewery and have been school
mates. In February, and for sone time pre-
vious, George had, or supposed he had,
grounds to suspect the fidelity of his vile.
He accused her of improper relations with q
shoemaker named 0benauer, who committed
suicide on the day following the accusation.
In the meantime the defendant had received
an anonymous and filthy letter, alleging to
give q full expose of Mrs. Schaffer's marital
indiseretiors. The writer asserted that che
was the cke'e annie of man named Muller,
an employe of the Eagle Cracker Bakery,
and that he had rented room on Dolores
street, between Thirteenth and Fourteenth,
where the couple met twice week The
anonymous writer claimed to be- the go.
between to the couple; to have
carried all the letters that passed
between them, and to have Tread
them too" The writer also charged Mrs.
Schafer with an inclination for her milkmau,
and, III conclusion, implored the defendant,
as the friend OF her husband, to win the wife
back from her dissolute course. The husb aad
learned of the existence OF this letter, and
demanded of his friend, the defendant, to see
it to the husband at his home. He left her.
and she has since resided with her parents.
She sues for damages, and alleges that the
defendant has slandered her in her reputation
as chaste woman, and questioned the leeiti.
macy of her child, which the defendant is
alleged to have said was the offspring OF the
baker. The def 4ndant denies the woman's
allegations, al d claims that what he did y
was in the preseace of the husband, and in
commenting upon the letter from the anony.
m US scfibblsr.
Mention was made few days ago CT the
reelection of valuable piece of gold quartz
at the metallurgical works of Professor
Thomas Price. Since then the remainder of
the consignment, excepting a chunk weighing
2G9 pounds, has bsen reduced, and the guam
tity of gold it contained definitely deter
mined. The total shipment weighed 1862
pounds, and the total yield SIG, 337 So.
This is equivalent to $3.50. 600 in gold per
ton. In other words, in weight one-quarter
of the material was gold; in bulk one
twenty-eighth, as the specific gravity of the
rock in which gold is found is seven times
less than that of gold. 1t is considered to be
the richest specimen of gold quartz eser OBJ.
tanned from any mine. The chunk weighing
299 pounds'is now on iexhibition at the Office
Of III. II. Noble, stoekbroker, 425 California
street. Ii is estimated to contain $50, 463
| This chunk is at the rate of $500, 600 a ton.
This remarkably rich quartz has been OBJ
tanned from the Rainbow mine, near Moore.
| Flat, Nevada county, at z depth of 200 fee
from the surface of the ledge. The ledgt
| itself underlies deposit of auriferous gravel
The mine has been worked for many
yelrs with varying degrees of suc
cess. The quartz obtained is not
of course, all Tor anywhere near) like th'
rich specimens which have yielded rearl,
! $40 zoo Ia the language of the professiona
miner, this rich strike was pocket" bu
! one such pocket would make mine which
| deal to obtain. The rock of the Rainbow i
said to yield ordinarily about $50 per ton
assays giving Sl14 per ton have been obtained
| But there was a time in its recent history
| when the question of abandonment was seri
ously considered. The new exploration
fiaalIy determined upon resulted in the lat
development. According to the miner
theory, there's more where that came from,
and yet it has frequently been the experience
in such cases that the search for 8 more ba
been unsuccessful. Whether the Rainbow
mine contains more rich pockets or not re
mains for future explorations to determine
The presence of such body of rich ore i'm
medately underlying the auriferous grave
beds of Nevada county clearly indicates tn
source whence those gravel beds obtained tn
precious metal they carry.
The Supreme Court has rendered an i'm
portsnt decision relative to the rights Of hus
band and wife. OF the common properi,
jacob Greiner loaned TO friends money, too
mortgages and security, and transferred then
to another with the secret understanding tba
they were to be held fer hitn-as the coz,
plant alleges--and this was done to defrau
the wife of her interest. He sued for
divorce and division of common property
and omitted therein any mention of this spe
cific common property. Meanwhile he oh
tanned possession of the securities again. Til
Supreme Court says that prior to the adop
ton of the Codes the title to the common
property vested in the husband He coul,
during the Overture dispose Of it absolutely
as if il ware his own, and the interest of tn
wife, during the same period, was mere ex
pectaucy, like the interest which an heir ma,
possess in the prosperity of his ancestors. l
! is true, however, that he could not depriv
her of it by his will. The same was held t,
he true under the Civil Code, Section 172
which provides that the husband has tn
management and control OF the communit,
property, with the like absolute power of dis
position other than testamentary-as he ha
to his own separate property. Such property
| is not liable though for the debts of the wifi
made after marriage, ualess secured by
pledge thereof made by the husband Will
such absolute power ever the communit,
| property the Court considered that il woul,
| be difficult to affirm that any fraud hsd bee,
C m nitted in regard to it By Jacob Greiner
| Ii he has retained any interest ia the prof
| erty transferred that interest still remain
common property, and the wife retains he
interest in it as before. If the transfer hac
been made to defraud, the wife can briri
| action to yacste it after the dissolu lion c
marriage. While the marriage bond existed
she could not, for it has been held that sh
has no interest which entities her to sue. A
this is SO the lapse of time will be no bar t.
such action, brought after dissolution of tn
community. AS to whether the interest o
the wife, while the overture existed, wa
sufficient in an action to eBjoin the husbsn
from carrying cut a threatened fraudulen
transfer of the property, the Court consid
though probably such action could be main
tair ei After treating other questions in th
case, the Court also affirms that Greiner
wrongful use of the money made him
trustee Of whatever was acquired for tn
benefit of the wife, under Section 1928 of th
Civil Code ; that one who gains thing b
fraud, the violation of trust or other wronl
full act is, unless be has some other and be
ter right thereto, an involuntary trustee
the thing gained for the benefit Of the pei
son who would otherwise have had it. Th
Court deemed it unnecessary to indicate pal
ticularly the relief to which the plainti
nav be entitled Enough had been said [