Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-02-24
ms posr.MTElllcEAcfR PUB. Co
s.safIe. June 10 issa
esanaYIc sIssEcz DsGIsIes
. yt,slaiA Letter ChaaRes Verdict 40
ase Hast Asmenf.


III stau Francisco Chro.ieis Of Feb.
,ssh eiyss as the account following Of
4. annas aOinRa, IN that city of .
anuinsns and pioneer citizen Of tAar
Tasiscrhi Cagisai;
fhe divorce suis Of Emma Horton w.
vN. Horton, which was tried bef0re
isdgs Wiison some lime ago. Was de-
,iAd ye,,tarday; she Jndee gfanting q
ssniisl nI favor OF tho defendant. A
.,snge aud very dramatic feature OF
- $40 s,as that, after delivering a vtfy
l.as oral opinion, which intimatsd be-
,god question fnal decision Ia favor
a s!ss p.sintid, the Court had It's attsnrl-
llau sailed N lstter which bad btan
sssioOked, and the peEusal of whi0h
sadasuly changed the decision 10 favor
4 aks defendant.
Tie plaintiff alleged that she and the
sssssdant we're married on MAY Esd.
~. snd that tie defendant then hali Q
ssss hvipR. The allegation of the mar.
riass u deEied by the defendant. In
a. souBs of the decision Judge wilson
sessYved that, whether intentionally or
assienediy, both parties had committed
psrlufy, bat fortunately there sxisred
seeas QUE hundred letters whioa lad
sssssd between them. and which, after
afafal examination, had assisted him
q fezchinR conclusion. lhe defend
snf admiia tkag he haai and still. hztt a
Isxfal wifa, and tue only question Ia As
. ths marriage between The plaintiG
sn1 defendant. Soon after their 90
seaIntapse, 10 1881, shey became On
ord. In April, lsse, willis he vas ut
0e1en. ths says that be wrote to her
~ bis business might detain him; n
d b would telegraph for her to conas
asnd they would bs married. He sWears
iksi 20 such letter was written. bat AN
sEaninatian shows oonclusiveIy that IL
ssa. Soc further testified that before
AsE maFFiago abe vas divorced, bot no
sseh dearss had been entered, boca asse
he entry had not been paid for, and
i1at on tho morning Of the toafriaqe be
seeempanied her 10 d. j. Toohy. that the
ASCENDANT paid him go and the decree
sas entered. lie took hsr to room On
ksafny street, where hs brought thsbe
msn, one Of whom pretended 20 DO Jus
tise Of the Peace Pennis. Who psrforraod
he marriage oefemony. The defend ant
dsnies these facts, and SAYS
iksix intimate relations began when he
1fst met the plaintiff, In 1881, and that
be vas aware that hs had a wife, md
Ihat the license and marriage certificate
zero made merely 10 quiet her relatives,
sho were becoming a.spieious OF their
rsiaaions. In regard to the letters, the
Judge stated that circumstances sh0w.
sne that the plaintiff was net aware that
BE- bad wife was the fact that no AHA
sios u made 10 such wife In any Of
The h,tsra. Referring farther 20 the
spisties, u appears that all tkoss written
befeFe the alleged marriage are sncii ~
might be written by gentleman tu q
lsdy, and vice versa, bat showing that
impsopex relations existed between them
bsfuFe marriage. All the subsequent
lslsgs begin " Ms lowing wife and ssre
sigped Your lowing husband" or some
lhinz of thai kind.
The foregoing ~ an abstract Of the
decision np 20 the time the missing let
~ vas produoed against the plaintiff.
This letter wan written n few moEths
priSH 10 the alleged marriage, and Ia Il
he plaintiff requested Horton, Who was
then NJ ORder. 10 ooSne to the city and
sesin ptoceedinRs against his wife as
soon a. possible, and 20 bring the Ariiion
h l,an Francisco. Shs aaid ID would be
better 70 eosnineiice suit here, as, II
afeueht In Olympia, bis wife would have
thAnce 10 contest IL.