The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-02-03
THEY ARE MARRIED.
E. III. Pitts Failed in His Attempt
TO Discard a Wife.
License Was Procured But Never Made Use
of-Tell-Tale Letters introduced
ifornia's Elastic Code.

On December l., 1890, Mary A. Pitts COM
menced an action against E. Ii. Pitts, pray
ing that their marriage, of which no record
exists, be declared valid aud binding, and
that he be enjoined from disposing of GER
tain sum of money, the amount of which is
unknown to her, but which, it is alleged,
constitutes their community property. The
usual prayer for a monthly allowan ce and
counsel fees was also made.
The defendant contended that no marriage
existed between him and the plaintiff, and
furthermore, that he and she never accumu-
lated any property together. Judge Murphy
issued an order restraining the defendant
from any disposal Of the property referred
to, if any there be, and yesterday the hear
ing of the matter came up before Judge
Finn.
The plaintiff took the stand in her own
behalf and stated that she had lived with
the defendant as his wife for sixteen years.
She produced number of letters purport-
ing TO be in his handwriting, and one of
which referred to an engagement ring in the
words: You have won my heart and with
pleasure it is yours"
THE LICENSE WAS NEVER USED.
1t was further developed that Pitts pro-
| CURED marriage license six or seven
months ago, but that 1t was never used.
| Subsequently he gave her $500 upon her
consent TO a separation, which she accepted
and used for her support, and Pitts, although
| he lett f0r couple OF days, soon returned
! to her.
The defendant, when placed on the stand
| testified as to his life with the plaintiff,
| saying that she had often told him that she
| tolerated him merely for convenience. His
wife had formed the acquaintance of one
| Fannie Page, whose reputation was none of
| the best, although her ostenSi BILE calling
was that of seamstress.
| His wife, continued the witness, often
| claimed marriage with one Cram, and he
knew of her Intimacy with a man named
| Boland. The witness, in writing to or
| speaking of her (the planting, called her his
wife up to eighteen months ago, but he de-
| MED that she claimed to be married to Cram
| to hide the illegitimacy of her daughter.
One Leverich testified next that he had
| known the plaintiff and the defendant for
nine years, and remembered that Pitts told
| him that he had to pay $500 to his wife,
| The witness tried TO influence them to make
up, but she merely said that she WAS fool
| for accepting the money, US she might have
| had more.
In October she said, when asked why she
| was moving her furniture from her rooms,
| that her husband, whether or not married to
| her, would not be rid of her so easily, and
| she would have half of his property or kill
| Hlul. DHo Ulteu Ltlkcu dI ObEtT lllHeS Ike
| drunken or crazy woman.
| GENERAL REPUTATION PROVED.
The witness acknowledged that he had a
difficulty with her on Market street. and
that she then slapped his face; but after
| ward he aided her when she was destitute
He considered the Pitts married until he
| was informed by her to the contrary. They
were generally reputed to be married.
The butcher with whom Pitts formerly
| traded then took the stand and testified to
the general reputation of the parties, and as
to whether or not they were regarded as man
and wife Several other witnesses were
called for the same purpose, and it seemed
| that there had always existed in their
neighborhood the suspicion that the Pitts
| were not married.
The plaintiffs counsel then made q short
| argument, and was followed by the attorney
for the defendant, who, however, was inter-
rupted by the Court before he had finished
his remarks.
Judge Finn did not care 10 hear anything
more on the subject, as he said that, accord
| ing to the law OF California, although per-
| hapS not elsewhere, a valid marriage had
been established between the parties in
their having lived together under the cir
cumstanceS as developed by the testimony.
Its validity was then confirmed by the
court, and stay Of proceedings for twenty
days granted.