Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-01-20
INTERESTING NEWS.
An Old Elopement Case in
the Court.
WHOSE DAUGHTER Is HUGHIEs
A. NeighbOrs' Quarrel Attracts Some
AttentiOn-The Accused Found
Guilty.

A very curious and interesting case
came up in Judge Clark's court yester-
day afternoon. 1t was the application Of
mother, Mrs. A. Stephens, for the
guardianship of her child, Hughie A.
Stephens. The petitions filed and the
testimony taken reavealed rather inter-
esting state Of affairs. 1t appears that
Hugh R. Stephens, now residing in this
city, had, prior to 1888, amassed for
tune which he now values at $125, 200, in
Texas. He had property there and
landed estate. Some time in 1881 he
made the acquaintance of Mr.. and Mrs.
Ebinet, who lived off and on for two
years on his places. In May of 1888,
Stephens, Notwithstanding he had wife
and four daughters, became 30 intimate
with Mrs. Ebinet that he swears now that
the child in question, born in February,
1884 is his daughter, although at that
time Mrs. Ebinet was the wife of another,
with whom she lived up to December,
1883. In December, 1888, Stephens took
$50, 900 in notes and money, and leaving
his wife, whom he married in 184S. he
and Mrs. Ebinet came to California and
up to very recently they have lived to-
gether as man and wife, although they
were not married until September 18th.
1888. 1t appears from Stephens testi-
mony yesterday that his first wife, whose
name was Rutherford before he married
her in 1848, obtained divorce from him
in August last on the ground of abandon
ment. In September he married the
woman with whom he came to Califor-
mia. In October he was appointed guar
dian of the child and her estate, he hav-
ing decided to her house and lot valued
at 81 500, and in December last bis second
wife obtained divorce from him on the
ground of cruelty. The child, however,
still remained in his custody, although he
had never had her in his possession for
more than two weeks.
Stephens, when questioned, said that
he came to San Jacinto with the last Mrs.
Stephens about five years ago, and two
months afterward the child was born.
Her husband had lived with her up to
the time they left Texas, in December,
1888, but from the previous May he had
known her tolerably intimately. She
was with child when they left Texas and
she claimed then that he was the father
of it, and the child was named after him,
Hughie A. Stephens, one week after it
was born. He decided the house and lot
TO the child and then his first wife got
divorce and he married the woman with
whom he had been living, the mother of
the child. When she sued him for q
divorce on the ground of cruelty he did
not object because he did not think she
was virtuous woman.
Judge Clark-Did you know that be-
fore?
Stephens-No, sir.
Judge Clark-Didn't you live with her
when she was married to another man?
Stephens-Yes, sir.
Stephens then went on to tell how on
November 9th or 9TH last he had seen
her in the bed of a man named Charles
Hoffman, who had room in the house.
Shortly afterward Hoffman entered the
room and they locked the door on him.
When they were discovered he divided
his property into two parts and gave her
half because he wanted to be fair with
her. This half amounted to about ten
or twelve thousand dollars.
On cross-examination Stephens identi-
fed letter he had written while he was
married to the petitioner, which read:
"My dear cousin: Now, dear one,
what do you think about the matter.
Don't be bashful. Tell me if you think
you can live with me and respect me as
you would husband" This was intro
duced for the purpose Of showing that
he was not the proper person to have
charge of the child. Judge Clark de-
cided to hear no more testimony and
said that it appeared that it would be
better for the child to be with neither.
He gave the contestants until Monday
to agree upon school to which the
child may be sent.