Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1892-12-01
FOR HER HONOR.
A California woman's Long Strua-
gle to Prove Her Marriage.
For Forty Years She Engages In Legal
Warfare and Mt tho Ago or Sew
enty IL Still Determined
to BE Righted.

Out1ncS Oh curious story De1Ore
Judge Hunt in San francisco the other
day. She was over seventy years old
and she wanted n divorce, if she Is
married, or what she calls "justice" If
she is not married. Therein, says the
San Francisco Examiner, lies the whole
point in the controversy she is making.
For forty years she has been struggling
to earn living and settle that Gisput-
ed point. Once the courts decided that
she was married, but by freak of for
tune the Judgment was never entered
up, and by her victory she only offered
another ground for contest to the man
she calls her husband. Catherine JOYS
was married to Thomas Joys in Killar-
ncy, Ireland, in April, 1912, so the old
lady, Mrs. Joy, claimed to judge Hunt
Nearly two years later son was born
to them. In 1S47, five years after tho
marriage, Joys suddenly disappeared
from Killarney. About the same time
one of the village beauties, Ann Cox,
also left her home. Shortly aftcrward
everybody knew that joys had gone to
America. a little later he reached Cal
ifornia. After knocking about awhile
he settled in this city.
Mrs. Joys learned of his whereabouts
md followed him here as soon as she
could get money enough together.
This was in 1859. She tried repeatedly
to have him recognize her, but he stead
lastly refused, st0utly affirming that he
had never married. her. She remained
near him, however, hoping against
hope that he would change his mind
and take her to his home. One day a
letter from ireland brought her tidinrs
that her boy WAS dangerously sick. She
hurried to him anl arrived Only in time
to bcstow parting blessing before he
died Friends collected another purse
for her and she returned again to the
fruitlcss struggle OF trying to gain
some sort Of recognition from joys.
lie would have nothing to do with her
and denied her all assistance. Mrs.
Joys earned what she could working
out, getting help if she needed it from
friends who knew her story.
Meanwhile joys had succeeded in
business and was accommodating n nice
little property. Ann Cox, the while,
was living ut 43l Hayes street. In 1878
Joys thought his affairs in such a fine
shape and his prospects so free from
disturbance that he married her. A lit
tie later Mrs. joys No. / brought suit
for 4 divorce on the grounds of infidcli-
ty. The case was fought long and Bit
terly in the old district court. The
great point in the fight was to prove
her marriage to joys in Killarney. Mrs.
joys won her suit and was declared to
be tho legitimate wife OF joys. She
was granted the divorce and Joys was
ordered to pay her twenty-five hundred
dollars as her share of the community
was worth over twenty Thousand dol
lars and detailed where the property
was located, but Joys swore that no
held the property in trust for Miss Cox.
AT that time costs in a suit were very
heavy The charges against Mrs. Joys
to enter up this judgment would have
been something like one hundred and
thirty dollars. Joys fought holly
against paying her q cent, and days
and weeks sped by while she was try
ing to get the money to enter the judg-
mcnt. 1t has never been entered to this
day. Joys continued to live with his
hearts second choice. She died not
long ago, leaving him two grown
daughters and an estate valued at fifty
thousand dollars. One Of the daugh-
tcrs brought suit. against local saw
ings bank not long ago to recover the
money her mother had on deposit there
and which sho claimed was her own.
joys still lives on Hayes street and is in
very good circumstances. lie still We
hcmcntly denies that he married Mrs.
Joys. A peculiar circumstance con-
nected with the present suit is the fact
that all the papers in the first suit re-
Gently disappeared from the county
clerks Office three weeks ago, few
days after the second suit was filed.
Dust-covered copies of some of the
papers have been found in the Offices of
attorneys who worked In the first case.
1t was the disappearance of these
papers that caused delay in the hear
ing. 90. ..',.