The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1884-12-26

MRS. Reigart AMI others as ms VINE,
the court believed her testimony willfully
false, but after scoring her for her false testi-
mony, and her attorneys for using false testi-
mony; said that a woman, doubtful of the
legality of her plea, might be tempted TO add
to its strength, and still the plea be just in
other respects. The decision concluded as
follows:
Il have endeavored to trace the lives of
the plaintiff and defendant from the time of
their first meeting to the present. | have
examined the law bearing on their relations,
as opened to my investigation and re-
search, and as a result have reached the
conclusion that " lliiam Sharon, defendant,
by virtue Of a secret contract OF marriage or
written consent thereto, ana OF sufficient as
sumption Oh marital rights, duties and Oh
Ii satlons of the marriage state to satisfy tbs
Jaw of the state of California. has become
and now is tie husband Of Sara Aithes
Sharon, plaintiff in this case. Admi sions of
pleadin5s ami explicit testimony in record,
establish that in violation OF bis marriage
VOW, lie has been guilty of Wllfuily apaa-
donlug lis WIFE,, under circumstances
amounting 10 desertion i'll the eyes Of the
law. and That such willful desertion contin-
ued tor more than one year, prior to the
commencement of this acton
Under the law of this state, Sarah Althea
Sharon, plaintiff in this case, Is entitled TO a
decree court dissoivms the bonds Of
marriage now existing between her and her
husband, William Sharoa defendant herein.
The law provides that on tie dissolution Of
marriage, the wife, in case OF desertion,
shall be awarded one hall TIE earnings or
accuEulati, rs OF tie parties daring mar
rage. No evidence has been offered to
establish what portion Of the property OF
tie defendant is community property, as
dlstIngul he'd from rents, issues profits and
accumulation OF his separate estate, held by
him prior to Aug. %, 1883; tie plcadngs do
not drtcrmme the amount or the character
OF tie property which constitute the acqui-
sitions Of the parties Us distinct from she
earnings of separate estate of each during
the marriage state, which constitute com
munity property. IN order to determine
that question it is necessary that an account
ing, or some further proceedings should be
had At this time, l announce for the i'll
formation OF the parties and counsel, that
the plaintiff is, in my Judgment entitled to
a decree of divorce on the ground of wiliful
desertion and a division of the common
property.
W. H. L. Barnes, leading counsel for ex
| Senator Sharon, says Of Judge SalliyaL's de-
| eisjon: 1T is an entire surprise TO the pro
| fession, both as to the law and the facts. The
| Judgment, as it stands, will nol be Il seliol-
| pecuniaFy injury to Sharon. ! doa't TANK
he has $1,000 worth of properly which
could be made subject to the decision Mr.
| Sharon is greatly annoyed by the present
decision, but has not the slightest idea Of
submission, and, OF course viii appeal, and
We are confident of reversing the decision
The suit brought by Sharon il the United
States circuit court to have the marriage
contract declared invalid will be prose-
| cuted"
The next thing on the programme will be
to submit the findings. Tyler will ask for
| S65, 900 alimony for the time of the trial and
$500, 900 counsel fees as his share. The case
will undoubtedly be appealed to the supreme
court but in the meantime Mrs Sharon will
insist upon an account being rendered Of the
community property. Sharon owns more
real estate in San Francisco than any other
man. His wealth is not less than Sl5, 900 900.
Pending a decision in the supreme court,
Sharon must pay his quandum wife 5000
| monthly.