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

lions to try to take him along 1t does not
seem to me from the evidence that plain
tiff ever had any great fear of losing her
child in this way.
The charge that defendant was in the
habit of using indecent language and dis
cussing improper subjects in the presence
of Pho, plaintiff and others, is not sustained
by the evidence. The main proof upon
the subject is that on one occasion, at the
table he used some words, not vulgar in
themselves, but capable of two meanings,
one innocent and the other bad Admit
ting that the language was used in the bad
sense still the circumstance would not be
sufficient to sustain the charge made upon
this point in the complaint.
The general charges that defendant
treated plaintiff with great want of consid-
Grafton in the presence of others; unJustly
censured her for extravaganza, and pre-
vented her from having suitable apparel i;
ordered the servants not to regard her or
ders, or to harness horse for her use etc,
! find no support in the evidence. The
weight of the testimony is the other way.
| The charge made in the supplemental
| complaint filed several months after the
! commencement of this suit, with respect
| to certain alleged statements made by de-
! PENDANT about plaintiff after final separa-
| ton, and after he knew that plaintiff was
about to commence an action against him,
and not heard by plaintiff until long after
| the action was commenced, l do not con-
| slider it necessary here to discuss
| The taking of laudanum by defendant in
| June, 1884, was not pretenSe. Suffering
| from some depression of spirits and some
physical Illness, he undoubtedly intended
the rash act Of suicide and his life was
saved with great difficulty But such an
actor even insanity itself-is not q cause
for divorce.
There was some trouble between plaintiff
and defendant IN 1S74-which lasted, how
ever, for only day-caUsed by a certain
statement about plaintiff made by her
, father to defendant. With that exception.
it fairly appears from the evidence that
| from the date of their marriage in Febru-
airy, 1873 to within less than year of their
separation in July. 1884, plaintiff and de-
PENDANT lived as pleasantly together as do
the majority of married people. This is
shown by letters written by both parties
to each other and to friends, and by the
| testimony of witnesses who often saw
! them together and observed their ways.
am aware that domestic infelicity is often
greatly concealed but q careful survey of
| the whole case necessarily leads to the con-
| clusion TO which | have come on this point.
There was very large amount of docu-
mentary evidence and oral testimony in
| troduced, to notice which in detail IS I'M
practicable Plaintiff left defendant in
! July, 1854 and refused to live any longer
with him as his wife. There were unpleas-
ant words between them during the last
few months, and plaintiff no doubt felt ag-
grieved. The final troubles between them
undoubtedly sprung mainly from differ
ences about property when their financial
embarrassment became apparent; but |
cannot put my finger upon anything which
| would warrant the Court under the law,
TO decree divorce.
As no determination of property rights
can be had in this action, ii is unnecessary
to examine that branch of the case.
My conclusion is that the prayer for a
divorce must be denied.
Under the law, however the Court may
determine the custody of minor children
while the parents are living separately, al
though no divorce be granted, and in this
case l have awarded the custody of the
child Pic TO the plaintiff.