Los Angeles herald., 1892-11-03
FIGHTING FOR THEIR DAUGHTER,
The Sargent Separation Case
Again in Court.
The Youthful Alleged Robbers of
Boron Explain Their Defense.
Proceedings of the Various Tribunals
Yesterday-NOtes of Cases Acted
Upon Yesterday-New
Suits Filed.


The domestic disagreements between
E. w. Sargent, the well-known abstract
man, and mis- wife, Mrs. Grace Ella Sar-
yesterday.
AS result OF the proceedings they
are now Just about where they were
when they signed the now somewhat
famous articles of separation over two
years ago.
Owing to the prominence of the par
ties, and the circumstances under
which it was instituted, this case bids
fair to be cause celebre. The present
suit was not for divorce, but it was a
struggle for the possession of their child,
an interesting and attractive daughter,
Sargent had lived together 16 years be-
fore marriage to them became failure.
They we're married at Sterling, ILL.,, Au-
gust 80, 1876, and their daughter was
born in 1879. Mr.. Sargent came from
Kansas to Los Angeles in 1856, and de-
cided to make it their permanent home.
He organized an abstract and title COM
pany, and took leading position in
that business in the city, and is at pres
ent attorney for an abstract and title
company. In February, 1883, Mrs. Sar-
gent aud Miss Lille went for visit to
her mother, Mrs. s. NJ. Barr, and sister,
Kittie Rea, at Ovid, Ray county, Mo-,
and returned in November of that year,
bringing her mother with her. The
mother lived with them until April,
$780, when Mrs. Sargent refused TO live
with her husband any longer, and ar
tices OF separation were drawn up and
executed.
By the terms OF this document, which
is very long, with number of thirdlies
and fourthlies, they were to separate
and Mrs. Eargent was to have the custody
and careepf the daughter. She was to
spend two months of every year in Los
Angeles, and to receive $50 per month
from Mr.. Sargent. She went back to
Missouri and remained there until Sep
tember of this year, carrying out her
part of the agreement. But Mr.. Sargent
changed his mind. He wearied of the
situation of affairs, and when che ar
rived served a written notice on bis wife
| to abrogate the articles of separation.
Then he brought the present suit to an
nul the articles and for the custody OF
/ the daughter, and the case has been
gradually drawing to an issue until yes
terday, when it was settled.
In his complaint Mr. Sargent claims
that he had lived happily with his wife
until the advent of his mother.inlaw,
Mrs. Barr, from which time, he alleges,
the apple of discord was let loose
amongst his household gods. He al
ways, he claims, had been tender and
afectionate husband, had supported his
family literally, and during Mrs. Barr's
18 months residence in his family
she alienated the affections of his
wife and prevailed upon her to in.
sist on separation and to return
with her to Missouri. He treated Mrs.
Sargent with uniform kindness and tried
to regain her affection. But she sought
the advice of an attorney and the sep
aration took place, she saying that it
would be only for six months and it was
necessary in order to induce her mother
to return to Missouri.
But after the separation she expressed
her determination to several parties
never to return to him. When che ar
rived in September it was several days
before she let him know of it, and then
it was by request for him to meet her
at an attorneys. She then said she
would never live with him again and
would take the child back east.
He then served the notice breaking
the contract. He had always intended
to give his child liberal education, but
Mrs. Sargent had neglected to send the
child to school, and only given her few
private lessons in music. He claims
Mrs. Sargent is erratic and impractical
BILE. and incompetent to care for the girl.
Mrs. Sargent in her answer to the long
arraignment against her, denies nearly
everything that her husband alleged,
and particularly his treatment of her.
She alleges that he has not supported
her literally, but that she had an allow
ance of only $40 month for household
expenses. She says she had been
dutiful and affectionate wife before her
departure in 1888, but that Mr.. Sargent
had treated her with great abuse, so
that she was driven almost distracted.
She was subjected to gross outrages on
his part, alleging amongst other things
that one night while they were in bed
he kicked her out of bed.
She visited an attorney and he advised
her to avoid the scandal of divorce, to
try and live with her husband, and she
did 80 for year longer, when she could
stand it no longer. For self-protection
snd decency she was obliged to defend
herself from his wanton and deliberate
attacks and indecency towards her, and
the separation was the result.
She denies that her mother did any,
thing to ALLEVIATE her from her husband,
and to the contrary she concealed these
t,ings from her mother as long as possi-
BILE. She says che is not erratic, but
that now when her daughter is budding
into womanhood it would be cruel to
take her away from her care, and that
she is looking carefully out for her edu-
cation.
The matter came before the court first
upon the point as to whether the notice
given py Mr.. Sargept was sufficient to
abrogate the contract. In a written
opinion he decided yesterday morning
that this annulled the contract, and this
placed Mrs, Sargent in the position of