The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-07-12
THE SHARONS WIN.
Ralst0n's Widow Has No Re-
dress i'm the Courts.
Judge Eawley Decides That He Has No
Jurisdiction - The End Of
Famous Case

The famous Ralston Sharon suit was
ended yesterday morning, Judge Hawley
| sustaining the demurrer Of the trustees of
| the Sharon estate and nonsuting Mrs
| RalStOn. The suit WAS brought by the lat
ter against Frederick w. Sharon and Frank
| q. Newlands Tor an accounting of the Raj
stOn estate. involving S5,000.000 The liti-
CATION has been going on for u years, and
the case is one of the most famous in the
history of California. The United States
Circuit Court was crowded yesterday morn
ing with legal talent and friends Of the con-
testing parties. The first count in the de-
mGrrer Of the defendants was that the
United States courts had no jurisdiction N
The matter, and it was on this count that
the suit was decided The decision of
Judge Hawley was a very long one, COW
ering over 60 pages of foolscap, and the
reading Of it occupied fully an hour. Judge
Hawley reviewed the entire case from the
DAY OF RllSton's death TO the present time.
THE DEMURRER
His Honor said the demurrer contained
three counts: First. that the court has no
jurisdictions; second, that the facts stated
do not justify any relief from the defend
ants, and third. that the. plaintiffs demand
is barred by her laches."
Reviewing the case, Judge Hawley said
that on August27, 1875, w. c. Ralston ex-
ecuted and delivered to William Sharon a
deed OF all his property. in trust, with
power TO collect rents, etc, and to sell and
dispose OF the property, anu that the pro-
ceeds be applied to such uses and purposes
as the said William Sharon might deem
best Tor the joint and several interests of the
saIG William Sharon and W. c. RalstOn,
ana that on the same day RalstOn died, and
Sharon entered INTO the possession Of all the
real estate and personal pro- city of Raj
stOn.
The will of the latter was probated, j. d.
Fry and a. j. Raston being the executors.
RETAINING CONTROL.
Sharon was advised 10 retain control Of
all OF the real and personal property In
the latter part Of 1879 and part Of 1876
Sharon disposed of ana otherwise dealt
with the estate and was engaged ia settling
RalStons Liabilities. In the year 1876 with
out any consideration, Mrs. Ralston exc
cnted certain deeds of property of her de-
ceased husband, aud without request, 10
sharon. Ia January, 1876 upon SharOn's
ADVICE, she gave her power Of attorney TO
A. j. RAlStou and w. Ii. l.. Barnes, author
lZtng them To act for her in all matters per
tanning to the estate of her husband In
September, 1876, she says Sharon repre-
sented TO her that RalstOn's liabilities were
greatly ia excess Of the value of his prop
erty; that II was doubtful if the latter
would ever increase, and that he would lose
at least $4,000, 900 in his efforts to pay the
debts of her husband that he presented To
her a written statement of all assets and
liabilities of the estate; that he rep
resented mat he was without ready
money, but he would give her his
notes for $4,000 if size would give
him full Release and discharge of all
claims, legal and equitable, and an ap-
prOVal OF his actions IN relation to the prop
eTty received by him from the estate; that
he would take the property for the debts
the estate owed him; that unless she ac-
ceDtPd this offer she would never realize
anything from the estate.
THE ATTORNEY. IN FACT.
That her executors and attorneys. in fact
advised her to accept the offer: that they
represented to her that they had examined
the statement prepared by Sharon, and also
examined his books and paneTS, aud that
Sharon had lost large sums of money in the
settlement Of her husbands liabilities.
That. relying upon the truth OF these
representations, she, on October %. 1876.
executed an instrument of release and an
prevail of Sharon's acts.
On October Z. 1880. the complainant COM
menced an action IN the Superior Court for
an accounting Of the estate to set aside the
Written instrument approving the acts of
sharon ana releasing her Interests in her
husband's estate. That A. ID. Sharon was
made party defendant in said action
upon the ground that he claimed to have AN
Interest in certain real estate iuvutved IN
said suit. The bill in that action, after
setting forth IN detail all the foregoing
the absolute falslty OF all OF said William
Sharon'S representations, and alleged that
her husbands estate was of much greater
value.
THE LIABILITY.
That his liabilities were much less than
the value OF his property; that the state
ment Of Sharon was false and fraudulent in
every particular. in not including all the
property belonging 10 the RAlston estate
aud in magnifyIng Ralston's debts and
charging liabilities which did not exist. In
stead Of the estate being insOlvent il was
worth several millions of dollars after the
pay ment Of Ralstons just debts.
On November p, 1889, the case was re-
moved TO the United States Circuit Court
on the petition of sharon, on the grounds
that be was citizen and resident IF the
State Of Nevada, and that the plaintiff was
citizen of California. A compromise was
effected and stipulation made by which
the widow was TO receive $4,000 Tue
final decree was entered October II, 1882
The suit which has just been decide d was
fled in the Circuit Court ON Oct0be II.
1887 1t prayed to have the stipulation set
aside and nave the decree Of dismissal de-
clared void, and that an account be taken of
all real and personal estate OF w. {. Raj
ston under the deed of trust Of August -,
1875; that an account OF all copartnersmp
transactions between Sharon and Ralston
be taken, etc.
THE ALLEGATIONS.
Inc Dlll alleged That Sharon died NOYem-
Der -, 1885, leaving no estate out OF whict
complainant could be satisfied, and saws
that prior TO his death Sharon gave TO the
defendants, L. G. Newiands and i. w.
Sharon, deed in trust as trustees of "all
the property, whether real, personal or
mixed. Of whatsoever nature In California,
Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and the
District OF Columbia, and wheTesoeyer else
situate, now owned by the said William
Sharon or to which he may be entitled" In
trust for the use and benefit Of the heirs Of
said Sharon.
Judge Hawley did not go into the second
aud third counts of the demurrer. II was
enough that all parties were citizens OF
California. He said:
A COURT OF EQUITY.
"a State court Of equity having jurisdic-
ton OF the parties and of the subject
matter OF the suit could make any decree in
tie premises that the facts would warrant
and that equity would sanction, and could
grant just as much relief as this court could
and such actions having relation to former
judgments and DEGREES in a State court
can be maintained in the Circuit Courts of
the United States if the parties to that
action are citizens OF different States"
His decision was as follows:
From the views expressed il necessarily
follows that this court has no jurisdiction
IN this case. 1t is therefore unnecessary to
consider the other grounds of the demurrer.
The demurrer is sustained and the bill is
dismissed"
ALAMEDA'S POUNDMASTER.