Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1884-12-25
SARAH ALTHEA WINS.
JUDGE SULLIVAN DECIDES THE
"DIS6USTING" CASE.

Plaintiff Is the Legal wife of ex.
senator sharon, and as such is
entitled to- - Divorce and u Di.
vision Of His Common Property
A Probable Appeal.
ESPECIAL TO THE SENTINEL
SAN Francisco, Dec. 24.-The cele-
brated Sharon divorce case has been de-
cided in favor of the plaintiff. The suit
as,brought by plaintiff, Miss Sarah Althea
Hill, claiming to be the wife of ex-senator
Sharon, was for divorce and division of
common property. Judge Sullivan's de-
cision is a very comprehensive one, and
contains about 26. 900 words. After re-
viewing the testimony he concludes by de-
claring that under the laws OF California
plaintiff is the legal wife Of Sharon, and rs
such is entitled to a divorce on the ground
Of willful desertion, and a division Of his
common property. The latter is esti-
mated to be worth $40, 900. 600. The YER
dict is a great surprise to the public, it
having been generally supposed from the
contradictory character Of the testimony
that plaintiff would have been non-suited.
1t is believed Sharon will appeal. In pre-
pairing his decision, Judge Sullivan said
the prosecution Of the plaintiffs claim has
been sought to be INSTRUCTED by criminal
prosecution for perjury, forgery and con-
o2;roax fsTba naaa hao haan Isa-
gushing beyond description. and tries me
almost beyond endurance. The testimony
has developed q great amount Of perjury,
rarely if ever paralleled in Jurisprudence
in this State, and in trying to wend my
way through the mass of perjury, in
which the case abounds, l have sought as
far as possible TO find some writing Of one
party or the other whose genuineness was
admitted or established to my satisfaction,
and to subordinate the result of all oral
evidence to the effect Of suchAVritten testi-
mony. The first paper Of importance as
evidence is the latter, written in ink and
addressed My Dear Wife, The defend
ant claims that this paper, as far as it
bears on the word wife is a forgery.
From all evidence ON the subject, 1t is my
opinion that the entire letter is in the hand
writing Of the defendant, as are all Other
exhibits similarly addressed"
Judge Sullivan then proceeds to review
the collateral facts of the case, and pro-
noupces them all in favor of the validity
o. the secret marriage contract. He
unhesitatingly gives it as his opin-
ion that the contract is gen.
uine, and written as the plaintiff
testified. 1t was, he believes, her story in
every particular. Referring to Miss Hills
life prior to the date Of contract, he says
that in the absence OF proof to the con-
trary he must regard the plaintiff as a
chaste and virtuous woman, and the whole
story OF her acquaintance with Sharon for
babe the idea that a chaste woman could
80 have consented to become a paid mis-
tress. The Judge then refers to the rela-
tons of the parties during 1881, 'S2 and
'S3, and in this he refers TO the Bracket
incident. He says: "To me this story is
incredible. / do not believe that a virtu-
Gus young woman Of her years would lend
herself, q maiden. TO the execution OF such
a scheme as her story would establish.
To believe il involves sacrifice OF common
sense. He ~pronounces plaintiffs testi-
mony in the matter OF alleged introduce
ton OF her to Mrs. Reigart and others by
Sharon as his wife willfully false. He
scores her heavily for this false testimony,
but later on excuses her by saying that q
woman, doubtful Of the legality OF her
plea, might be tempted to unfairly add to
lis strength and still the plea be just in
other respects. Recapitufating, he says
the plaintiff did meet defendant in the
Spring of 1880 and consulted with him in
regard to her stock transactions. After
several interviews he proposed to her
that she should become his mistress.
His offer was declined. He then told
her he desired to marry her.
This was followed by a discussion
on the subject of secret marriage, and
plaintiff on a later occasion did at his die
tation write the marriage contract, which
has been offered in evidence. and the same
was then and there signed by the defend
ant. The actual date Of the consumma-
ton OF the marriage Is not definitely
known. Judge Sullivan then proceeds to
discuss what constitutes q marriage under
the laws of this State, and having done
80, and in view Of the testimony offered,
concludes by saying that William Sharon,
the defendant, by virtue Of his secret con-
tract OF marriage, on his written consent
thereto, and of his sufficient assumption
OF martial rights, duties and obligations
of a married state to satisfy the laws OF
California, has become and Is now the
husband Of Sarah Althea Sharon, plaintiff
- Akto oaaa