Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-06-08
Talensin VS.. Valensin.

The evidence for the defense in the Va
lensin divorce case was finished Saturday
and the plaintiff is now putting in re
buttal testimony 1t is thought that tn
case will be concluded this week.
The first witness Saturday morning wa
the defendant. He said that when he lei
the Arno farm he brought with him
sketch of his married life. This paper h
had turned over to his attorneys yet a
that time there mad been nothing salt
about proceedings for divorce.
Rev. Father Grace was called for the de
Tense. and related the conversations he hat
with Mrs. Valensin at Santa Cruz. when h
went there 10 effect a reconciliation, if posi-
Bile. at the request of Mr.. Valensin. He sale
at first Mrs. Valensin refused to return to he
husband. doubling Mr. Valensin's profes
sions and motives Finally, after Father
Grace had labored with her for some time
she promised to return and live with Valen
! sin again, upon certain conditions. UpoI
the strength of that statement witness tele
graphed to Mr. Ealensin, "All will be
| right"
| On cross-examination witness said Mrs
Valensin expressed herself as being afraid
to return to her husband, and said she
would not again live with him in the ordi-
nary relations of man aud wife. One OF
the conditions upon which she agreed tC
return was that her husband would become
a Catholic.
Judge Beatty said that before he began
| to put in rebutting testimony he would ask
! the Court for q nOnsuit to defendants
cross motion for a divorce, on the grounds
| of adultery. He said that during the en-
| tire trial not one scintalla of evidence had
| been produced to support the charge.
| Mr. Catlin-'' think, myself, they are
| entitled TO il"
The Court" Very well; let the motion
be granted
REBUTTING TESTIMONY.
Mrs. Alice NJ. Valensin was the first wit
ness in rebuttal She said she had no
recollection of ever having conversed with
the female members of the Metcalf family,
except on the subject of washing ironing,
| cooking, or some kindred subject, which
they had some knowledge Of or could I'M
derstand. They were uneducated and so
far as society was concerned, were no COM
panv for witness. In speaking of the con-
versation that it was stated she had some
DAYS ago with Mrs. Moore ON the road be
tween Arno and Hcllsville, witness says
she did not threaten to send Mr.. Moore or
any of her neighbOrs to prison. Mrs Moore
was the first to suggest that her husband
had been guilty OF perjury. Mrs. Moore,
on that occasion, said TO witness that Mr..
Valensin had taken her husband to town,
had filed him with liquor, and while in
that condition, being irresponsible, he would
swear to anything.
Witness stated that the testimony of Mrs.
Rich could be accounted for on account of
her dense ignorance. She knew but little,
and her capacity for learning was small
indeed Mrs. Valensin took pity on her at
one time, when she was a young lady and
endeavored to make something of her, but
had to give up all attempts. She said
" Her 0yershadowing ignorance appalled,
me-
Before marriage witness says Mr.. Nalen-
sin always spoke as if he had an abundance
of means with which to maintain wife.
There never was question of money be-
tween Us prior to our marriage. Witness
claims that the idea of coming to America
originated with her husband She says
that during the laudanum scene Mr.. Mesicll
did not draw a knife upon Mr. Ealensin, as
the latter stated. She was quite positive
that no such thing occurred She also
denied that Mr.. Mesick had ever advised
her to sign no papers with Nalensin re-
garding property interests, because that
would preclude the possibility of her get
ting divorce.
Witness said that Mr.. Catlin defendants
attorney, had made her an offer of COM
promise which he assured her would be
satisfactory to Mr.. Nalensin. Mr.. Catlin
said he would call upon her attorneys and
lay the matter before them. At the same
interview he said that if q suit for divorce
was instituted witness and Mr.. Mesick
would not come out so well as they expected.
This she considered as threat, and had
informed her counsel that she would ac-
Cept of no compromise.
james B. Deyine, who was clerk in
Beatty 4 Denson's Office last year, was
placed upon the stand, to testify that while
he was in their employ it was a daily Gus
tom to make memoranda Of the days
business.
The book was offered in evidence, and on
motion ruled ont. The entry referred to
was in Denson's handwriting, dated Sep
TENDER p, 1854, and read as follows:
Valcnsin vs Observation-Disclosures here; papers
complete. Catlin called to-day trying 10 com
promise.
Judge s. c. benson, the next witness,
testified to having made the entry referred
to- and also to the fact that Catlin was
there that day trying to effect compro-
mise
The proceedings the rest of the day were
UnlmpOTtant.