The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-08-09
THE RALSTON suit AGAIN.
When Did L. G. NeWlands and L.
Sharon Abandon California?
The Question Arises on a Notion to Amend
Mrs RalstOn's Bill for Accounting
Issue One Of Jurisdictions Only

The celebrated case OF Mrs. Lizzie Raj
stoD, widow of William c. RalstOn, versus
Frank G. Newlands and Frederick Sharon,
trustees Of the Sharon estate. came up again
in the United States Circuit Court yeSter-
day. A few days ago Judge Hawley sus-
tanned a demurrer to her complaint on the
ground of want OF jurisdiction, which was
supposed to have given the case its quetus.
The action was TO set aside the consent de-
cree of Judgment in favor Of the defendants,
on the ground of fraud in Sharon having
concealed the property Of the RalstOn trust
estate, which property. the complaint states.
was conveyed oy William Sharon within
few days of his death to Frank Newlands
and Frederick Sharon, as trustees, to dis
tribute to Frederick Sharon Lady Hesketh.
Newlands' children and Newlands himself.
The form OF the proceedings taken yester-
day was a motion to amend the complaint
BY alleging that Frank q. Newlands and
Frederick Sharon were citizens of New York
on October IL. 1887, the time the suit was
commenced.
Joseph NJ. Nougues. the attorney for Mrs.
RalSton, claimed that he had information
that Newlands and Frederick Sharon had
abandoned their citizenship of California al
a time when he believed they were citizens.
La reply TO this motion, Mr.. HerriD. attOr-
ney for the defendants, filed an affidavit
tHauc Dy NSWtdUlH IN tue STATE OF NEVADA
on August o. 1892. to the effect that he was
citizen OF the State of California until
March, 1888, when he abandoned Califor-
MIA; that he then took up his residence in
the State Of New York. where he resided
In the city of New York until December,
1883. when he abandoned the city of New
York and took up his residence in Nevada,
where, with the exception of temporary alb
sences, he has at ali times since resided.
The affidavit of Frederick Sharon was
also fled, to the effect that no was a resi-
dent and citizen OF the State of California
on October H. 1887. and continued to be such
until March 6, 1888, when he, for the first
time, resolved to abandon his home and resi-
dence in California and take up such resi-
dence in the State of New York that he
arrived in New York from France on March
II, 1888, and that since that time he has re-
sided III the city of New York.
Mr. NOugues stated that his information
was that Mr.. Sharon never returned to the
State Of California after he left in 1887 until
some time in 1888 and after he and New
lands, in April 1885, had fled bill in the
famous Sharon marriage suit and that
Newlands and Sharon were citizens Of the
State of New York.
Judge McKenna gave further time for
afiidaYits to be filed on the part of Mrs
RalstoB, showing if she could, when New
lands and Sharon had ceased TO be citizens
Of California.
The recent ruling of Judge Hawley was
that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction,
because they were citizens Of California
the same State of which Mrs Ralston was
citizen. The pending motion is therefore
TO amend the complaint to show the con-
trary.