The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-02-26
Fees and Alimony.

Fees and AlfmonY.
In the Superior court Of the city and
county of San Francisco-Sarah A.
sharon, plaintiff, VS.. William Sharon,
defendant.-This is an action for divorce
The present application is for alimony
peJs2ente lite and for counsel fees. The
fact of marriage is denied. Notwith
standing defendant s denial, find as a
fact that q valid marriage is shown to
exist between plaintiff and defendant.
The plaintiff is without means to prop
erly maintain herself. or to properly
compensate her counsel for the conduct
of her cause.
The law which governs in case of
this kind is plainly written in Section
l37 of the Civil Code of this State:
while an action for divorce is pending
the court may i'll its discretion require
the husband to pay as aimony any
money necessary TO enable the wife to
support herself, or to prosecute or de-
fend the action"
The object of the law is to place theWife
on an equality with the husband dur
ing the litigation III which she is seeking
redress for her grievances. The hus-
bands denial of the relationship does
not, where the court finds it to be es-
tablished, relieve defendant of his obi
cations, or the court of its duties to
comply with the law. Under the law as
laid down in the code and the facts as 1
find them, deem it an imperative duty
to make an allowance to plaintiff for
her support and the compensation of
her counsel.
Defendant and his counsel recognize
the rule and its application to the facts
as found by the court, but they seek to
escape from the immediate enforcement
of the rule which the statute con-
templates. Defendant asks the court to
deny plaintiff her statutory rights to
alimony because he intends to appeal
from any judgment of this court de-
claring him to be the husband of plain
tiff.
/ ana asked to step aside from the
procedure invariably followed in such
cases and to delay the enforcement of
plaintiffs rights to immediate relief un-
til ] place defendant in a position in
which he can defy the order of this
court requiring him to support his wife
pending the action. The request Las at
least the merit of novelty have heard
no argument advanced which would
warrant the court in departing from the
established procedure in cases of this
kind
Defendant seeks further to delay the
granting of the plaintiffs prayer for
proper relief until the court shall have
successfully assisted him in the re.
covery of bride which he directed his
leading counsel to place in the hands Of
the confidential clerk of plaintiffs at
torney of record.
Plaintiff was notin any way connected
with that transaction and ] see ne
reason why the penalty should fall upon
her. Nor is it, under well-establisheC
principles of public policy, the duty OF
this court in this proceeding to concern
itself with the recovery of this money
by defendant.
1 purposely avoid saying anything
further on this subject because the con
duct of the parties participating in tn,
transaction has been made the subject
of investigation by other tribunals in 81
far as it involved breach of profes
sional ethics, or breach of the crimina
code. While so pending shall no
necessarily say anything to influenc
the determination of the matter b,
such tribunals.
On the hearing of this motion mas.
of testimony, oral and written, was sub
mitted as to the credibility of certain
testimony given at the trial. l shal
not discuss these matters at this time
For present purposes it is sufficient +
say that, as to the fact of marriage, m
conclusion is as above indicated. Som
of these matters afford SUBJECT TO
serious consideration.
Many of these matters will properI
come up for consideration on the heal
ing of the motion for a new trial an
they can then be better considered i
connection with such other matters q
may be presented at that time.
The amount proper to be allowed a
this time as alimony and counsel fee
has been very serious question for N
to determine. The plaintiff shout
have a proper allowance, but th
amount prayed for is far in excess {
the requirements of the case. The la
contemplates not division of the d,
PENDANTS estate, but a payment Their,
from of a proper allowance for plain
tiff7s support and of proper fees for he
counsel.
10 view of plaintiffs present SUI
roundings and difficulties 1 think a
allowance of $500 per month is
reasonable allowance. This alloWanC
shall take effect as of the date of tn
application (January s, 1885,; the fu
sum of $500 TO be paid on or befol
March 8, 1885, and further sums
$500 each to be made on the Sth da
of April and of each subsequent mont
until the further order of this court.
A proper allowance for counsel,
view of the litigation past present an
prospective, is The sum OF $55, 900, whiC
sllm defendant is directed to pay I
plaintiff for the purpose Of enablir