Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-07-19

Der to witness the embraces of the man she
claimed to be her husband she saw him
go to the arms of other women without
jealous manifestations; she received three
brief letters from him, in which she is adj
dressed as My Dear Wife," all relating to
money payments or secret meetings, and a
score of letters that were such as man
would address to his mistress. These
Dear Wife letters were not made public,
and when produced in Court were repudi-
ated by the man as forgeries. The man,
says the Court, never openly acknowledged
her as his wife, and according to her
theory was not bound to do so, but was at
liberty to keep their relations with each
other secret, and the two did not openly
associate with each other any more after
than before the making of the contract
The Court adds:
1t seems to us that this evidence shows con-
elusiyely that these parties did not live and CO
habit together " in the way usual with married
people," They did not lire or cohaba together
at ALL They had their separate habitations in
different hotels. Her visits to his room and his
visits to hers were occasional, and apparently
as visitors They had no common home or
dwelling place. This did not constitute a living
together, or cohabitation. (Yardlys Estate rs
Penn, 207; Ohio vs. Connoway Township, Ia
pms Ohio Rep. So Their acts and conduct
were entirely consistent with the meretIicious
relation of man and mistress, and almost en-
tirely inconsistent with the relation of husband
and wife. 1t may be said that the public man
mar n W ha h,
he to his friends, was inconsistent with his
claim that she was his mistress and not his
wife. This might be SO with some men but
the record before US bears unmistakable evil
dence OF the fact that this man had sinned SO
long and SO openly in this respect that he did
not care to conceal his wrong doing even from
his own family. Besides, it must be remem-
bered that there was nothing openly improper
in their relations, in connection with their
association with other persons. She was re.
ceived and treated as mere lady friend and
acquaintance, aud not otherwise That any
greater intimacy existed between them thar
would have been proper as between friends of
the public.
That there may be clearance of all
doubts in this matter, so important to be
understood by all the people, the Supreme
Court is careful to say:
But there was in fact no agreement or stipula-
ton in the contract that the marriage relation
claimed to have existed between these parties
should be kept secret. The stipulation was: ~
agree not TO make known the contents of this
paper, or its existence for two years. unless Mr.
Sharon himself sees fit to make it known" This
stipulation did not in any way operate to pre-
vent the full and open assumption by them of
marital rights, duties and obligations, nor could
It prevent her from declaring that they were
husband and wife. This written consent was
not necessary to the validity of the marriage.
Had HAD they commenced at once to live together as
husband and wife, under a verbal consent to
become such, and had mutually and openly as
sumed maritel rights, duties and obligations,
the marriage would undoubtedly have ben up
held. we have decided, that because they did
not assume such rights, duties and obligations.
or, in other words, concealed and kept secret
the marriage relation there was no valid mar
rage, but we are quite clear that the secrecy
clause IN the contract, If the statute had been
complied with in this respect, would not have
rendered the marriage invalid, and that is the
real question involved.
The RECoRD-UNIoN urged upon the
Legislature of 1887 to put all such shames
as this Sharon-Hill case out of considera-
ton for all the future, by an express sta
tute declaring all secret agreements to live
together and consort secretly, illegal,
and to require that all marriages by con-
tract shall be recorded after being wit
messed, and be followed Immediately by
open mutual assumption of marital rights
and duties. The Legislature of 1889 was
again urged to make the Civil Code af-
Tentatively clear upon this subject. In
neither case was the necessary legislation
had. But the next Legislature should not
fail to clear the way SO thoroughly and so
broadly, and make the statute so explicit,
that it will be impossible for any compli-
cations hereafter to arise, such as have
vexed this State because of the Hill
Sharon case.