Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-01-07
THE SHARON CASE.
The Remarkable Decision of a Re.
markable Case.
.Tt,f. n

Chicago Inter Ocean.
The decision OF Judge Sullivan in
TIE famous Sharon divorce suit is as
remarkable as the case II covers. In
legal circles 10 will ce, tainly be re
garded as mastery analysis of long
Grawn case, u clear, incisive review Of
testimony, a decision az fair and equi-
table as 1t is striking aud unique,
within the evidence. AS litprnry
production the document Is excen-
tinnNl being gfaceful1n composition,
original in expression, and il singh.
larry Interesting reading for "A judicial
review. That 1t viii often figure a. a
precedent in law is not 10
be doubted, and it very admirably
caps g case that has, Thorough
the great wealth and Prominence Of
The defendant, achieved national no
tOfiety.
Judge Sullivan was quite impartial
in his distribution Of inyectives, and
administered them with absolute fear
lessness He referred TO one witness
as q malicious trickster, y TO mother as
'sWift and wiling He described
Sharon as "libertine," an hotel
I Keeper" and a "malevOlent defend
.
tifi had lied willfully to bolster up her
case and declared that the whole case
abOunded i'm 'frightul periury,n aud
disgusting details" He characterize
the conduct Of Tyler, the attorney for
the plaintiff, who had several times
ueen fined for contempt as "a piece II
unparalleled ofiensiveuess, and gen
orally whipped right and left with
censoripus sarcasm and direct condem-
nation.
He defined the case in two sharply
opposing paragraphs: 1.-The plaintiff
represents herself as the injured wife
Of a secret marriage, seeking TO emerge
from the doubts, DARKNESS and sus-
picion that almost invariably attend a
relationship of that kind. She claims
that her husband, tired OF her goclety
has brutality cast her aside and re-
I sisted her claims to an honest, virtu-
GUS association with him on the
ground that II WAS secret and base IN
its nature" "TEe defendant claims
that ne Is the victim OF dark con.
spiracy, connected by base and mer-
cenary woman, who, for a pittance OF
$500 month, surrendered her person
to his embraces. He deDounces
the plaintiff as perjurer,
iorger and consplratoT, who Is seeking
by the aid of the court to wrest from
him n portion Of his great wealth -
The case has been disgusting beyond
description, and tiresome almost be.
yond endurance. Ia trying 10 see my
way through the mass OF perjury in
which this ease abounds, have sought
az far as possible 20 find some writing
Of one party or the other whose gen
uiEeness was admitted To my satisfac-
! ton, and TO subordinate the result Of
| OH oral evidence TO the effect OF such
written testimony
This desirable basis he found in a
letter written In ink and addressed
my Dear Wife, and signed by Shs-
/ ron. de was convinced this was a
| genuine document The letter wa
| presumably written in 1880, two
months after the alleged secret mar
riage. The marriage was by written
contract, mutual aeknow iedgment
ia writing, which was, unhappily for
the speedy settlement Of the cess, IN
the handwriting Of the plaintiff, ez-
cept as 10 the signature of sharon,
whieh was claimed 10 be a forgery
The court held, from the expert tesii.
mony, that the signature WAS genuine.
The question arose, was the signature
given after the contract matter had
been written? After very thorough
and technical examination OF all the
propositions OF forgery, carefully To-
viewing the several explanatory pleas
and suggestions Of the defense. the
court answered the question nfirna
lively to his entire satisfaction. Taking