Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-12-14
DIVORCE DENIED.
DECISION OF JUDGE VAN FLEET IN THE
JOHNSTON CASE.
He Denies Mrs. Johnston's Prayer for a
Divorce-A Sharp Review of
the Testimony.

the defendants favor Frequent allusion
was made to the case by the local
press during the trial, and the public is
well informed as to its merits. The par
ties have been married forty years, and, as
is well known by persons who have been
acquainted with them during their resi-
dence in this county, got along well
together until few years ago. Their rela-
tions since then have not been of the pleas
ATTEST character, but Judge Van Fleet con-
cIudes that they have not been of sufi-
GENTLY serious character to warrant a dis
solution Of the marriage tie at this late day.
The decision is as follows:
In the Superior Court of the county of Sacra-
m into, State of California. Department Two
Margaret Johnston, plaintiff, vs.. William E.
Plaintiff brings this action for divorce on the
ground of cruelty. The evidence in her behalf
would go to show that for some years past the
defendant has been guilty OF q general course
of ill-treatment toward plaintiff, amounting at
times to conduct of very brutal character, as
for instance, that he has been in the habit fire.
quentiy of getting angry at plaintlh without
cause and swearing a. and cursing her and call
ing her vile Names and on several occasions
has resorted to personal violence upon her by
3
That he has OF recent years evinced a growing
GOODNESS toward her, has ceased 10 occupy the
same room with her, scarcely ever spoke to her
except in an angry and threatening manner or
to find fault with matters that did not please
him. That during the past summer, while
plaintiff was ILL., the defendant neglected her
and abused her, and said she was only pretend
ing to be sick; and in various other ways has
treated plaintiff in such manner that she has
been compelled to leave him and is afraid to live
On the other hand, the evidence for defend
ant directly tended 10 refute the PLAINTIFFS case
as to brutal and cruel Conduct, and to show, on
the contrary, that defendant mas never in any
way mistreated or abused plalntln or neglected
her, and that he has not grown cold toward her;
that plaintiff and defendant have a. times had
differences and would quarrel aud call each
other names but never 10 any serious conse-
quence and that on such occasions one was as
much to blame as the other; that defendant had
never used violence of any kind on plaintiff by
striking her or otherwise, snd thai they have
mostly lived happily and peaceably together
until quite recently; that since their children
grew UP and married. defendant has had some
trouble with his sOns-ln-laW and with some of
his sons over money and business matters, and
they have turned against HIM and have preju-
diced the paintif against him. and that this
has caused trouble between the Plaintiff and
defendant and has induced plaintiff TO bring
this action.
The principal witnf sses for the plaintiff and
those whose evidence tends most strongly to
show cruel treatment were sons and daughters
OF the parties. These witnesses testified to
many and repeated acts of harsh treatment by
defendant. N calling plaintiff vile names and
the use of personal violence on her, and in gen
eral their evidence, II true in detail, would
make the defendant out a veritable Bluebeard.
But their testimony was not given in a manner
TO make pleasant or favorable impression
upon my mind 1t exhibited through
out a very strong prejudice and hos
tility on their part toward the defendant
and a corresponding bias in favor of the plant
if and indicated such an apparent inability to
be fair and impartial in their testimony as to
greatly detIact from its value. In large part
their testimony as to acts that would show cruel
treatment was not only opposed by the strong
current of physical facts and circumstances ap-
peRring in the case and the evidence of other
witnesses but was widely at variance with that
of the plaintiff herself. The most fragrant in
stances of alleged personal violence ties. lied to
by them were not mentioned by the plaintiff at
all, and are not alleged in her complaint; and
some of the more opprobrious epithets stated by
several OF them as having been frequently ap-
piled to plaintiff by defendant are not to be
found in plaintiff testimony at all.
The plaintiff testified fully and at length as
to the defendants conduct, and answered read
lily and intelligently all questions put to her by
council skillful and accomplished in eliciting
evidence, and l am bound to presume that she
testified as strongly in her own behalf as the
facts would warrant, and yet there is wide dis
parity between her statements and those of the
children in many important respects, and par
ticularly as 10 acts of personal violence by de-
PENDANT. While the latter testify to number
of instances where they claim the defendant
Struck the DlaiUtlu ana USED violence her
person, she mentions but one, and yet these
matters were of a character to be of necessity
within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff
and there was nothing to indicate that thew
were omitted by her through inadyertence or
mistake. Throughout their testimony there ap-
peared such manifest disposition TO magnify
and exaggerate incidents OF comparatively
trivial character, and such seeming reluctance
to concede any po.sible merit in favor of the
defendant, as TO seriously detract from the value
of their statements IN more important partieu-
And vx-h5 a 7 a n tf hafia
that any OF them deliberately testified to mat
tiers that they knew ere not true, yet am sat
listed that their statements, in large part, were
highly magnified snd eolored by their feelings,
and are not entitled to full cTedenee.
As against this evidence in behalf of plaintiff,
the Oldest son of the parties testified for the de-
PENDANT. lie appeart to be III every way dis
posed TO be fair and impartial as between the
parties and his testimony was given in a man
Der to carry conviction Of its truth. His evil
dence was 10 the effect that / lived at home
untl he was q years of age, and has visited
there frequently since. That IL never saw or
heard OF his father striking his mother at any
time but he always treated her kindly, and
they got aong as well as people usually do.
Sometimes they would quarrel a bout lit lie mat
tiers and call each other names, on such &C.
cBSOns his mother appeared to give his father
cas- good as he sent aud never seemed to be
afraid of him.
A lady teaching school in the neighborhood
of the partie lived in he family for some fopr
months, at a time when their alleged differences
were about at their worst-aeeCrding to the evil
denee for plaintiff; this witness estifes that she
never saw any indication OF uu appiness or IN
pleasantness between plainiih and defendant
but that they treated each other in a manner
friendly and pleasant Several other appar-
emily fair and disinterested witnesses, of more
or less intimacy vi the family, testified to the
same general eject
in this state of the evidence, and after giving
it very careful consideration, | have been I'M
able to come to the conclusion that anyth ng
amounting 70 cruelty has been established in
this case.
The evidence shows that these parties were
married in Missouri in 1919, and came to this
State, across the plains, in the same year; that
they have lived together uninterruptedly ever
since q period of more than forty years, and
have raised family Of eight children to man
and womRnhOod-the defendant being now over
seventy years OF age, and the plaintiff nearly six
ty. They arrived in California practically penni-
less, and for many years mad TO WORK hard and
constantly to support themselves and children;
that as a result of their industry and frugality,
and some small means received number of
years ago By defendant from the estates of his
father and a sister, they have accumulated
some property, enough at least to support
them comfortably, By economy, in their old
aye BY keeping Il together. Their married
life large part, 50 far as the evidence tends to
disclose it, Sppears to have been as even and
happy as is usual with those who are called
upon 10 do daily physical toll for a living. They
hsd their trials incident to a struggle with pow
erty and sorrows in the loss of children, while
now and then their domestic life would be dis
tuTbed by differences. They both appear to be
persons Of positive nature and convictions, and
st times their ideas did not jibe and they would
quarrel but not to such an extent as to cause
any serious breach il their happiness until very
lately. They grew up and started IN lie on the
frontier OF civilization, neither having the adj
vantages OF A polished education, and largely
uneecustomed 10 those refinements of speech
and manner found in the society of older and
more settled communities. and each bears yet
30 certain extent the impress of their early
snd hardy experience.
The plaintiff is a plsin-spoken, honest
Straightforward woman, who has made an in
dusfTicus and faithful wife and good mother;
while the defendant Is a nan Of rough exterior
given 10 blunt, hearty manner of speech and
aclisn and the use, 10 some extent. OF pnotane
Ia euaee, and is somewhat dogmatic in his dis
positions bu. wlthal he is man OF kindly in.
tentl0ns and good heart, aud mas been faithful
husbsnf and one who has always provided
wei fos his family. Al times, il is true, he has
been Inclined 10 De rough even TO harshness in