The weekly Elko independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1872-1887, 1885-01-04
91A mAaon-mL sur DssDED rs
FAVOR OF rLAIEruF.

Judge SslirAn. before whom the lam
%. Sh.ros-HlI divorce ease vas tried,
N San EnnGseo. rendered his occasion
IN he ease Wedaeslly. After REVERSING
She t<Stirropy BE e0nclCjes By declaring
that nader the Laws Of California plain
eli j. The legal wife o; Sharon. and :
Aeh il entitled 70 a divorce On tie
ground OF Nilfal desertion. and a divis-
Jon Of his eomnio property. In pre-,
pairing his decision, Judge Sullivan said
the prosecution OF The plaintiffs claim
has been souSh; TO L. DISTRACTED 10y
criminal prosecution Tor perjury. forgery
and conspiracy. The case has been
disgusti9s b yOnd description, and tries
me LmGz; beyond endurance. The
testimony has developed a great amount
of periery. rarely ii ever paralle!ei III
Jurisprudence in this State. and in try
in: to Weni nv way throrGh the mass
OF perjury. in which the case GJounds. 1
have sought, rs far as possible. to End
some writing OF one panty or the other
whose GenDinrress was admitted OF es-
tablishei to MY satisfaction, and to sub.
ordinate the result u all oral evidence
70 the effect Of such written testimony.
The frs; paper Of importance as eY-
dence Is the letter, written IN ink and ad-
dressed Ms Dear Vile Tue dr!cullut
claims that this paper, rs far IS It Lears
on the word 'Siie, Is a forgery. From
ali evidence on the subject, II IS my opiu-
jon tina; the entire lr;t.T IS III TIE hand
writing of the defendant, as are aIi
other exhibits similarly addressed"
Judge Sullivan then proceeds to review
Abe collateral facts OF the ease and pro-
nounees them all in favor Of the validity
of the secret marriage contract. lie uu-
hesitatiugly gives it as his opinion hat
the contract IL genuine, and written us
The plaintiff testified. II was, he BE-
~lieves, in accordance with her story ia
every particular. Referring TO Miss
Hills lie prior TO the Gate Of the coll
tract, be says that in the absence Of
proof to the contrary, he must regnTi
the plaintiff as ~ chnste and Ysrtuuus
woman, aud the whole story Of her &c
quaintance with Sharon forbade the idea
that n chasie woman could % have con
scented to become II paid mistress. The
Judge then refers TO Tie relations Of the
parties during 1851, 90 and 's3, aud il
this he refers to the Bracket Incident.
He says: ITO me this story is iucr-di-
BILE ! 10 not believe that y y~iT;UOus
young woman Of her years would lend
herself, a maiden, to the execution Of
such n scheme as her story would cstsL-
lish. TO believe it involves sacrifice Of
common sense. lie pEonounces El.in-
tif's testimony in the matter Of alleged
introduction Of her to Mrs. iseigaTt and
Others 10y Sharon as his vile wil.uliy
false. He scores her heagily for thi,
false testimony, but later on excuses her
by saying that n woman, doubtful OF the
legality of her plea, might be tempted t o
unfairly add 10 its strength, and still the
plea be just in other respects. Rccapi-
tulating, lie says the plaintiff did meet
defendant in the Spring of 1850 and con-
suited yith him in regard 10 her stock
transactions. After several interviews
he proposed to her that she should be-
come his mistress. Ills offer was de
clined. He then told her he desired 10
marry her. This was followed by a dis
cussion OF the subject OF secret mar
riage, and Plnintiff ON a later occasion
did. OF his dictation, write the marriage
contract which has been offered in evi.
dence, and the same was then and there
signed by the defendant. The actual
date Of the contamination OF the Iuar.
rage is not definitely known. Judge
Sullivan then proceeds to discuss whnl
constitutes a marriage under the laws of
this State, aud having done SO. and in
view Of the testimony offered, concludes
by saying that William Sharon, the de,
PENDANT, 10y virtue of his secret contract
OF marriage, on his written consent
thereto. and Of his sufficient assumption
OF marital rights, duties aud obligation.
OF a marrieu state to satisfy the laws o
California. has become and Is now tn
husband Of Sarah AIthca Sharon.
Plaintih's counsel will make npplica
ton for counsel's fees and $4,000 .
month alimony for the fourteen month.
The trial ms been in progress.
General Barnes. leading counsel 70
Sharon, says: The Judgment, lift stands
will not tc II serious pecuuinry injury I,
Sharon. ! don't think he has $1,000
worth Of property which coall be mall
subject TO the decision. Mr.. Shuron i
greatly annoyed 10y the present decision
but has not the slightest idea Of submis
sion, and OF course will appeal. and ",
mrs confident OF reversing the decision
The suit brought by Sharon in Tn,
United States Circuit Cont to huve ia
marriage contract declared invalid WI,
be prosecuted.
- ---
Thn r.r-,n gtI.r.uts a.-