Los Angeles herald., 1892-05-10
JACKSON VS.. JACKSON.
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES A
CAUSE CELEBRE.
The Judgment of the Lower Court AT
frmed-The Case of Cowdon VS..
the Steamship Company
Decided.

The supreme court has at last decided
the somewhat celebrated Jackson
divorce case, familiar to the people of
this community. The opinion in this
case, and in the case of Cowden vs. the
Pacific Coast Steamship company, a
suit charging discrimination in freight
rates, were received by Clerk Ashmore
yesterday.
Dolores G. Jackson appellant vs. John
E. Jackson, respondent, in bank. In
July, 1873, plaintiff and defendant inter
married in Los Angeles. In May, 1890,
the plaintiff commenced this action to
have her marriage with defendant an
nulled, upon the ground that at the
time it was contracted he had another
wife living, and that such former mar
riage had never been dissolved by q
decree of divorce or otherwise. The
defendant by his answer admitted a
prior marriage, but alleged that for FIVE
successive years Immediately preceding
his marriage with the plaintiff his
former wife had been absent from him
and was not known by him to be living,
and that he believed her to be dead.
Defendant also filed cross-complaint
in which he alleged that in February,
1864, he was married to Elizabeth
Wharton in Australia, and they lived
together as man and wife for one year,
when they separated by mutual con-
sent, and in 1865 he removed to Cahfor-
mia, where he has ever since resided !;
that for more than seven years prior to
July, 1878, when he married the
plaintiff, he had not heard from his
former wife, although he made diligent
inquiries and wrote to her several
times to know OF her whereabouts, and
also wrote to several others, her rela-
tives, friends and acquaintances, inquip-
ing as to her whereabouts, and receiving
no answers to any of his letters he be-
lieved her to be dead. In January,
1884, he decided his property over to the
plaintiff.
When tried the court found the facts
to be as in the amended cross-complainu
and entered a decree dissolving the
bonds of matrimony. vacating the deeds
made by defendant and ordering an
equal distribution OF the property.
The supreme court afirms the judg-
ment and order of the lower court.
In bank. B. Cowden, appellant, vs..
the Pacific Coast Steamship company.
This'is an action brought by plaintiff to-
recover damages of defendant for dis
elimination in freight rates. A demur-
rer to the complaint was interposed on
the ground that the court had no juris-
diction of the subject matter of the ac-
tion, and that no cause OF action was
stated. The demurrer was sustained, I,
and the ruling Of the court in this
regard is the only matter before us for
review.
The complaint substantially alleges
that the defendant is q common carrier
of freight by vessel between San Fran
cisco and San Diego, via the Pacific
ocean; that between certain dates the
plaintiff, as a merchant OF San Diego,
paid to defendant, according to it's regu-
lar schedule of rates, large sums of
money as charges for freight; that de-
fendant charged a second merchant F21s
per cent less for freight of the same
character and quantity than it did
plaintiff; that said charges were 8 dis
elimination against plaintiff, and though
often requested so to do defendant re-
fused to allow plaintiff such reduced
rates, whereby he was damaged in the
sum of $l67414. The amount sought to
be recovered as damages is the differ
ence between the freight charges made
to the plaintiff and those made to the
more favored merchant.
The judgment of the lower court is
affirmed, the court saying: ''The court
concludes that the complaint is deficient
in not stating that the charge to plain
| tiff was unreasonable; and that the al
legation of discrimination or inequality
is not the equivalent of an allegation Of
an excessive charge. Let the judgment
| ~ ,A1rp,od.j