The San Francisco call., 1895-07-30
VICTORY FOR THE WIFE.
Referee Jacobs Decided That
She Was Entitled to a
Divorce.
WILL GET HEAVY ALIM0NY.
BY Stipulation She Is to Receive One
Hundred Dollars
Week.

NEW YORK, n. Y, July 29.-Referee
Edward Jacobs filed his report to-day in
the Superior Court in the suit brought by
Mrs. Ollie Corbett against her husband
James j. Corbett, the pugilist, for
absolute divorce. Referee Jacobs finds
that Corbett has been guilty
of improper conduct with woman
named Vera, and recommends that Mrs
Corbett be allowed 500 a week alimony
during her natural life, as provided for in
an agreement entered into between the
plaintiff and defendant when they separa-
ted during the present year. Referee
Jacobs opinion is as follows:
The parties to this controversy were married
on June 2S, 1886, at Salt Lake City, in the Ter
ritory of Utah, and continued to live together
as husband and wife until some time during
the present year, when they separated. The
complaint charges the defendant with miscon-
duct with a woman and the answer denies the
same.
The proofs are that the defendant was re-
peatedly seen in the company of a woman
named Vera; that she was present with him in
tbs dressing-room in theaters at which he was
performing; that on journey at night
from Cincinnati to st. Louis they
occupied together a stateroom; that they
stopped together in hotel in Cincinnati; !;
that the defendant repeatedly introduced Vera
to members OF his company and to others as
his wife; that at hotels in various places at
which the defendant and his theatrical CON-
pany stopped the defendant and Vera were
registered as ''Mr. and Mrs. Corbett," also
"Jemes ]. Corbett and wife,"
While it is true that divorce should not be
granted upon mere suspicion, and must be
founded upon facts which demonstrate to
the mind that the party charged
with the offense of misconduct is
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, yet
this does not necessarily mean that direct evi.
dence of the fact must be proven. If the evil
dence tends to guilt it is sufficient. In the
present case the links clearly form an un-
broken chain.
In the case of Chase VS.. Chase, decided by
Judge Russell in the Supreme Court, special
term, April, 1892, the learned Judge says:
The objection that there was no direct evil
denee of misconduct with women by the plain
tiff is not sufficient TO answer the findings OF
the referee. 1t it were necessary to have
ocular evidence few divorces for this cause
could be obtained. The evidence of circum-
stances may be wholly and entirely sufficient.
The case at bar falls directly within the rule
laid down in the case cited. Taking into con-
sAuSA eIioA tuS 1dCts peloIe TeleTTeu 10 lne con-
clusion is irresistible that the defendant did
commit Illegal acts, and it follows,
consequently, that the plaintiff is
entitled to the usual decree in such cases.
With reference to the question of alimony, that
is a matter which the parties have agreed to
adjust between themselves, and this they have
right to do. By their articles of separat ton
entered into March last, it was agreed that the
defendant should pay to plaintiff 800 per week
during her natural life. As no proof was
offered before me to show the present financial
condition of the defendant, must regard the
articles of separation as binding, and l recon-
mend that the alimony which the parties have
themselves fixed should be continued