Weekly Phoenix herald., 1885-01-01
JUDGE suLL1vAN's DECISION.


 Ie this morning 10 hear the opinion J.: read in the sharon divorce case a The plaintiff was present tOgethe a with the counsel on both sides, tn n only absentces being David Terry $ one of the plaintiffs attorneys, ant t the defendant, William Sharon n The decision took two hours anC S thlrty-tiVe minutes to read. Wher Il it had been rendered there was 2 e rush to congratulate the plaintiff t who had been led from the room to t recover from faintness occasiOned r by the excitement. On her recovery she left the court accompanied by
 her counsel. The plaintiffs counsel
 will make an application for coun- sel fees, and five thousand dollars,
 amount of allimony for fourteen
 months, em bracing the period since
 the trial began. The actual trial
 of the case oGapied eigAty.One days.
 The decision seemed to be generally
 satisfactory to the people at large
 At 10 this morning the Post issued
 an extra containing the text of that
 part of the dicision which showed
 that the decision was in favor of the
 plaintiff. The papers published
 portraits of both plaintiff and de-
 fendant. Speaking to an Associated | Press reporter, Gen. Barnes, senior
 counsel for the defendant said:
 ''Sulltvan's decisIon is an entire
 surprise 10 the legal profession, both
 as to law and fact. This judgment if it stands will Lot be serious
 pecuniary injury to Ar. Sharon, as
 all bis estate is his separate proper ty, and with its income and profits
 is exempt from the decision. I don't think he has $10,9Oo of pr operty
 which could be msde subject to the decisiOn.''
 THE SHARON DIVORCE CAsE.
 SAN FRANcIEco, Dec. 24.-The celebrated Sharon divorce case has been decided Tn favor of ibe plaintiff The suit as brought by the plaintiff, Miss Sarah Althea Hill, claiming to be the wife Of ex>Senator Sharon | was for divorce and division of com. | munIty property. Judge Sullivan's decision is very comprehensive 1 or e and contains about 26,000 words l Alter reviewing the testimony, he concludes by declaring that under the laws of California the plaintiff is the legal W fife of Sharon, and IS sufh. is entitled to divorce on the ground of yilful desertion, and divis ion sf common property. The latter is estimated to be wnrih $10,000,0 ,000. The verdict is great surprise to the public, it having been generally sup- posed from contradictory testt- mony, that the plaintiff, would have been non suited. It is believed that Sharon will appeal. In prefscing his decision Judge Sul- liysh said; "The prosecution of the plaintiffs has been sought to be ob, structed by criminsi prosecution for perjury. forgery and conspiracy. case has been disgusting beyond ne >tioB snd tiresome almost be- trance, The testimony w all amount of perjury ~s -Alleied ill the iuFiss rudence of this state iH "y ing 'o l end my way through oe mass o' | srinrv i, which the ease l>oounds. ( have sought so far as possible, U ] nd some writing of one psrty oi i he other, where genuineness was t imitted, or established to my satls- 0 Lction and to subordinate the result il f all the oral evidence to effect such n rritten testimony The first paper h f importance as evidence is q letter 8 'ritten in Ink addressed My dear h -ife.1 The defendant claims that lis paper as far as it bears the word wife," is forgery, but from all le evidence ea the subject it IS my n pinIon that the entire letter is in ls le handwriting of the defendant, q are all other exhibits similarly D ddressed." Judge SulliyaG then a' roceeds to review the collateral u Icts in the case, and pronounees Il lem all in favor of the validity of s ie secret marriage contract. He un- II gives il us his opinion lat the contract is genuine and ritten as the plaintiff testified it Q as. .,
 RAILROAD TALK. 1T