The herald., 1894-04-29
INDISS0LUBLE BONDS.
THE SUPREME COURT TACKLES A
COMPLICATED DIVORCE CASE.
The Court Comments on the Sir rkulRr
Testimony Against Mrs. Jennie Il.
Brenot of Orange Uounty-A
Santa Barbara Case.

An opinion was received yesterday at
the Los Angeles Office of the supreme
court in the case of f. l.. Brenot, re-
epondent, vs. Jennie Il. Brenot, appel
liant.
It was an sction in the superior court
OF Orange county for divorce. charging
defendant with adultery. She denied
the allegations and filed q cross COM
plant, alleging extrems cruelty. Upon
hearing the evidence the court found
the charges of both parties to be true.
and denied all relief. dismissing the
action. The defendant appealed frsm
the judgment and order denying q new
/ trial.
In discussing the points raised on ap-
peal the supreme court says: "The al.
! legations OF the complaint, charging the
| acts OF adultery. are sufficiently made as
against q general demurrer. There is
alao no question but what court OF
equity 10 authorized to enter q judgment
Diminishing an action of divorce, whore
both parties are seeking O decree, and
the evidence discloses them to be ually
guilty of the misconduct alleged. 1t is
claimed that tho custody of q minor
child was 3 material issue in this case,
snd should have besn passed upon by
| the judgment of the court"
| The court holds that it was not neo-
esssry to make any order as to the care
and custody of the child.
TheEdefendsnt made a motion for q
new trial upon the ground. among
| others, that the evidence failed to sup
port the findings as tc the acts OF adul-
| terry. Upon the hearing of the motion
counsel for the plaintiff objected that
the statement did not sufficiently speci
! fy the particulars wherein the evidence
WAS insufficient. The court thereupen
sustained the objection and denied the
motion for new trial.
The supreme court says, relative to
the point, that the lower court commit
tad an error in refusing to c9naider de-
tandants specification 8 tothe insuf-
nciency of the evidence.
The superior court found that on or
/ about August l, 1892 and September /,
1892, the defendant committed adultery
with jeff Harlan. The defendant as
ported by the evidence, and the supreme
court says:
The evidence upon this question
the main of the testimony of one Jeff
Harlan, who appears to be living upon
the bounty of the plaintiff, and who is
not only the principal witness for the
plaintiff agsinst the woman, but states
under oath that he is the party with
whom che committed the acts of adul-
terry. While the court considered this
evidence upon making its finding of
fact, etill We think it should again be
carefully reviewed by the court, upon
the hearing OF the motion for q new
trial. 1t is ofsuch a startling character,
coming from the source it does, Rs to de-
mand 8 most careful review whenever
and wherever it is presented before q
| court of justice. For the foregoing rsR-
sons the Judgment is affirmed, and the
order denying a new trial is reversed,
with directions to the trial court to pass
upon the suficiency of the evidence sug-
| gested by the specification considered
in this opinion, and to thersupon pass
upon the motion of new trial"
An opinion by the supreme court in
the case OF Pierce. respondent, va. Hill
ton, appellant, a Santa Barbara oAss,
was also received for filing. 1t was
suit in e1sctnent for tract OF laud iD
Santa Barbara county. part Of the
Rancho Lomss de la Purifeacion. The
plaintiff had judgment and the defend
ant appealed directly from the judg-
ment, without any bill of exceptions.
The court below found that the plain.
tiff waa the owner in fee Himple and en-
titled to the possession OF the tract sued
for, and while so entitled the defendant
ousted him thereirom, and rendered
Judgment that the plaintiff should re-
cover possession "of sll that portion OF
said tract lying north of the aouthsrly
line thereof OF which the said defendant
Was on the 25th day of August, 1891, the
date Of the commencement OF the action,
in possession" After discussion of
various minor points raiEed, the judg-
meut Of the superior court is affirmed.