The record-union., 1894-10-22
MRS. HELENA WOHLFROM Is HAPPY.
Her Divorce From John Wagner is
Finally Affirmed.
But If the Appeal Had Gone Against
Her, She Would Be in an
Awkward Fix.

The Supreme Court has rendered a de-
cision in the case of Helena Wagner, re-
spondent, VS.. John Wagner, appellant,
case which has excited much interest in
this part of the State.
The plaintiff sought divorce from her
husband on the grounds of neglect, de-
sertion and cruelty, each ground being
alleged in the complaint as separate
ground for action. In these counts she
alleged that on June s, 1887, he deserted
her; that since that time he has willfully
neglected to provide for her the common
est necessaries of life, although he has
had the ability TO do so.
On the allegations OF cruelty the court
found for the defendant, and the finding
is not challenged by either party. The
complaint is unverified and the defend
! ant pleaded general denial, and as af-
firmative defenses that at the time of the
commencement of the action there was
another suit pending between the parties
| upon the same cause of action, and also
that i'll another action between them for
the same cause of action a judgment had
been rendered In favor of the defendant
prior to the commencement of the pres
ent action.
The court found that the defendant de-
serted plaintiff on juno l, 1887, and since
that date had continued his desertlon and
had willfully neglected to provide for her
the common necessarieS OF life, although
able TO do so.
In 1887 she commenced action in Yolo
County for divorce upon these grounds,
and on May l3, 1889, judgment was en-
tered in his favor. On June l, 1889, she
commenced second action in Sacra-
Inento County on the same grounds and
Judgment was again rendered in Wag
ner's favor on October "a, 1889. The
present action was commenced in Janu-
airy, 1891, = and the court in July of that
year granted J decree in Mrs. Wagner's
favor.
Five days later Mrs. Wagner was mar
ried to John Wohlfrom, a wealthy
rancher of Holo County.
Shortly afterward Mrs. Wagner -Wohl-
from's counsel. j. Ii. McKune, made
motion in Judge Catlin's court to have
wagner, her former husband, pay her
counsel ices and costs OF suit. Wagner
appeared in court with his attorneys,
Albert NJ. and Hiram w. Johnson, to
contest the motion. An affidavit was
presented setting forth that Wagner was
not financially able to pay the costs and
counsel fees. He said he had no separate
estate and was earning only 500 or so
month as mechanic.
He alleged that his ex-wife had kept him
Door by her constant and veXatious liti-
CATION. Since 1886 he had been kept busy
putting up money in contesting her suits
for divorce. He had reason TO believe
that her now husband was rich and able
to pay her fees. He presented All affida-
Wit from the Iolo Assessor to prove that
Wohlfrom was assessed at SO, 900.
Wagner's counsel severely commented
on the alleged indecent haste" shown by
Mrs Wagner in getting married five
days after getting decree OF divorce,
we'll knowing that Wagner intended TO
appeal the case TO the Supreme Court.
After considerable argument OH both
sides Judge Catlin denied Mrs. WohI-
from's motion, remarlling that there was
little use in her having wealthy hus-
band II he would not pay her counsel
fees.
In due time Wagner appealed the case
to the Supreme Court, albeit his wife was
already the partner of another man. and
the appeal has been hanging fire ever
since.
In its decision the Supreme Court holds
that judgment in favor of the husband
in ali action by the wife for divorce on
the ground alleged, could not in the ma
ture OF things be a bar to her right to as
sert as ground for divorce his continued
neglect TO support her for year, accru-
ing after the entry of such Judgment The
support of his wife is a continuing oblipa-
ton on the part of the husband, and his
failure TO meet this obligation is a contin-
uing cause for divorce, unless it appears
TO the court that there has been an un-
reasonable lapse OF time before the action
is commenced, ana the husband is not re-
leased from this obligation by a judg-
inent in his favor in an action fer divorce
on this ground.
The law does not fix the amount of in
come the husband must receive in order
to impose upon him the obligation of
supporting his wife, and it is lett to the
judgmentof the lower court in each case
TO determine the extent of obligation.
W hen lie is in constant employment at
ordinary wages, and refuses or neglec;s
| for years TO make any provision Tor the
wants of his wife, a court is justified in
finding him guilty of willful neglect.
The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.