The herald., 1893-07-19
LIKE THE PRINCE OF WALES,
Aguilar Perjured Himself Like
a Gentleman.
The Result of the Divorce Suit of
Richards VS.. Richards.
Judge Van Dyke Rules That Because
Both Parties Proved Their AIle-
CATION Neither Gan
Have Divorce.

The result of the Richards divorce
suit in Judge Van Dykes court yester-
day was decidedly novel.
The case has attracted some attention.
owing to the publicity given to the
parties in the recent trial of Antonio
Aguilar for shooting Mr.. Richards, at
which trial Aguilar was convicted.
d. F. Richards and his wife, Mrs.
Mary Richards. lived in East Los An
geles, and the neighbors have been in
attendance at the divorce suit in great
numbers.
Mrs. Richards was divorced from her
husband some time ago, and afterwards
married him. They never seemed to
get along we'll together, however, and it
was not long after the second marriage
that Richards went away and did not
turn up for about seven months.
Mrs. Richards appears to be quite
thrifty woman, and accumulated a little
money in bank by hard work as we'll as
supporting her children, boy and girl.
Amongst other things che rented her
barn to Antonio Aguilar and boarded
him. When her husband returned he
was consumed with jealousy and accused
her of intimacy with Aguilar. The rows
resulted in the shooting, of which Agui-
lar has just been convicted.
Mrs. Richards brought suit for divorce
against her husband charging him with
failure to support herself and children.
He filed cross complaint, charging
her with adultery and cruelty.
1t is the examination of these charges
and counter charges that has occupied
the attention of Judge Van Dyke for sev-
eral days. past.
The last witness in the case yesterday
afternoon was Antonio Aguilar, who,
when asked if he had ever been crimi-
nally intimate with Mrs. Richards,
stood up from the witness chair and
solemnly raised his right hand, and as
did the Prince of Wales once In some
what similar occasion, exclaimed, 81
swear, no."
Judge Van Dyke at once proceeded to
pass Judgment. Mrs. Richards, the
plaintiff, he said, had charged her hus-
band with non-support. This charge
the evidence had already sustained and
the plaintiff on that charge would under
ordinary circumstances be entitled to
divorce.
But, the judge continued. the charge
of adultery brought by the husband
against his wife had also been sustained.
While the testimony upon that point
was circumstantial, yet the circum-
stances were go strong that it could not
Init he held that the charge had heen
sustained.
This entitled the husband to divorce,
and decree would be given him under
ordinary circumstances.
The anomalous state of affairs, how
ever, by which both plaintiff and de-
fendsnt had proved the charges made,
brought the case within the law OF
recrimination. Each would have been
entitled to a divorce had the other not
made the charges which had been in
vestigated. Recrimination having been
established, however, the court held
that the parties must go out of court,
neither taking decree.
The announcement of the decision of
the court was eagerly followed by all
present. When Judge Van Dyke said
that Mrs. Richards had proved her
charge, the face of that matron lighted
up and she felt that she had won. But
when the court went on and said that
her husband also had proved the charge
of adultery, her face was a study. 1t
was a surprise, and the principals
scarcely knew ''where they were at"
when the final words were spoken and
the Judge marched towards his cham
bers.