Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-07-04

case, stripped of immaterial matters and
mere generalities, rests mainly upon these
points:
First-That plaintiff consented to be
married by civil magistrate upon the
promise of defendant that he would i'm
! mediately have marriage ceremony per
formed according to the rites of the Catho-
t lie Church, of which plaintiff was mem
I Der, and that defendant has wholly neg
! lected to keep said promise.
Second-That defendant received and
appropriated the whole of plaintiffs in
! come. and controlled her separate property
and compelled her to mortgage it.
! Third-That for the purpose Of getting
! her consent to such control of her income
I and property, defendant threatened to take
| their infant son, Pho, away from plaintiff,
and threatened to commit suicide.
! Fourth-That defendant used indecent
and improper language, and discussed ina
proper subjects in presence of Pho, and also
of plaintiff and others; and
Fifth-That defendant treated her with
great want of respect in the presence OF
Others; unjustly censured her for extraya-
gance, SO that she was compelled to deny
herself many things suitable to her situa-
ton and circumstances, and even suitable
apparel; ordered the servants not to re
gard her wishes, or to harness horse for
her. etc.
As to the first point, there is a conflict Of
evidence as to whether or not defendant
did promise to be married by priest. As
suming, however that he did, still no de-
mand appears ever to have been made for
the fulfllment of the promise. The allega
ton of the complaint is that defendant
neglected to keep the promise. The sub
ject does not appear TO have been discussed
til shortly before they separated in 1884,
which was nearly twelve years subsequent
to their marriage. There is certainly no
evidence tending to show that this matter
caused any great amount of mental suffer
ing.
With respect to the defendants control of
plaintiff income and property, the main
facts are briefly these: The parties were
married in Florence, Italy, in February,
| 1873. Defendant, who was only q years
| old at the time, depended for his support
upon his father, who was a man of some
/ wealth. His father allowed him the in
come of $4,000 francs, which amounted in
our money to about $500 per month.
Plaintiff also had property i'll California, the
| income Of which amounted to about the
| same sum, $500 per month. l think ii
| fairly apparent from the evidence that the
| JtltltS u!iueIStOUu lildI tle idiillS was 10
! be supported in a certain style upon these
| however, plaintiff received only $1,000 of
! her income, and defendant had to draw to
| some extent upolrhis capital. In the fall
| of 1874 the parties visited California, and
returned to Italy in the latter part of that
| year. While i'll California arrangements
were made by which plaintiff income was
afterwards regularly forwarded to her
IN Italy, where the parties lived
an apparently agreeable life until
the year 1877. Plaintiff alleges of this
visit that defendant "brought' her to
California but there is no proof that she
| did not come willingly. 1t seems to have
| been a trip made by mutual consent, main
| ~ for the purpose of securing the payment
of her income, about which there had been
| trouble. There is no doubt that after their
return to Italy defendant controlled this
income, that is he received it from her and
paid it out In addition 10 paying family
expenses, he may have used some of it for
other purposes, or wasted it in personal ex-
trayagance, but it does not appear that she
did not freely allow him to do it. In 1877
the parties came to California, where they
have resided ever since. Plaintiff ex-
changed her property, from which she had
been receiving her income and also some
of land in Sacramento county, upon which
the parties went to reside, and commenced
farming. In 1873, an adjoining piece of
land, containing about $50 acres, called the
Hall tract, was purchased in defendants
name Defendant claims the Hall tract as
his separate property, but whether it is or
not need now be determined Another
small tract was decided to plaintiff by he.
mother and there is dispute as to who
owns that. Defendant farmed the land for
three or four years, and then most of the
grain rowing part of ii was leased. In the
meantime defendant commenced and prose
cuted on part of the land the business of
raising fine trCtting race horses. During
the first years of their residence there plain
tiff, at defendant 5 request, executed econd
mortgages On her land; and, finally, in
December, 1888, all the then existing mort
cages were paid of by plaintiff and de-
PENDANT Jointly executing a new mortgage
for $50, 900 on all their lands There is no
doubt that during all this time defendant
had the entire management of all this
property and business, and received all the
income; and there is no doubt that it was
very badly managed. Making due allow
ance for the purchase Of the Hall tract,
which cost $1,000, and for a considerable
amount of improvements put upon the
y
etc, and for the usual viCissitudes of bust
ness, still it is difficult to account for the
large amount OF money which passed
through his hands. In addition to the
gross income of her property, which
was several thousand dollars a year, and
the sums raised upon the mortgages,
he spent q still much larger amount Of his
own separate money. During the first year
Of their residence here lie received con-
siderable sums Of mony from Europe and !
after the death Of his father in 1881 quite a !
little fortune was sent him. From 1877 to |
1884 lie received, in all, from Italy, about |
eighty three thousand (SS3, O0O) dollars |
all of which, together with the money that |
came from plaintiff property, was spent |
here during that time. Much of 1t was. no |
doubt. used unprofitably in the race-hOrse |
business and some of it cannot be traced |
But the evidence does not show any serious |
objection made by plaintiff 10 the control |
of her property by defendant, at least until |
the time Of the execution of the last mort !
gage in December, 1888. Indeed, there is |
strong evidence to show that the property |
of the partics-both community and Sepa-
rate-Was intended to be treated as if each |
had common interest in all. Defendant !
expected, and had a right to expect, large |
inheritance from his parents. In 1879 he |
made will in which he left all his prop
erty to plaintiff, including all my fortune |
coming from my fathers estate" In |
June, 1850, plaintiff and defendant executed
Joint will, in which they declare that for |
the purposes of the will, all the property |
owned by us in common, and all property |
owned by either Of us, wherever situate is
to be considered and held TO be owned by |
US jointly in equal undivided shares" The |
will then provides that in case Of the death |
of either all the property shall go to the
survivor and the son Pic. The parties |
thoroughly understood this will and it was !
drawn by an attorney after full consulta-
ton with both of them. OF course this in
strument has no force as a contract or
conveyance; but it tends strongly to show
the friendly relations of the parties at the
time, and plaintiff S consent to defendants |
control of the property and business. AT |
.;.,.n 10 Of tkn Lost nrt-