The record-union., 1895-10-31
TALMADGE'S WIFE WANTS ALIMONY.
She Thinks One Hundred and Fifty
About Right.
But Judge Catlin Says She Must Man.
age to Get Along on Forty
Dollars a Month";

The case OF Martha r. Talmadgs vs..
c. V. Talmadge and Mary Jane 1ai-
madgs came up before Judge Catlin yes
terday on a motion for alimony and at
torney's fees.
Mr.. Talmsdge married the complalnah'
about two years ago in San FRANCISCO, 10
being over 20 and she q years OLD, pu'
since September she has not lived Win
him. and this month sued for divorce
on the ground OF cruelty, alleging that ne
called her vile names and threatened her.
She testified that she was kept by Tai
madge for two months before he married
her, at 90l L street, and that he allowed
her $500 month ito enable her to have
good time and 60 buggy-riding," as she
explained to the Judge. In answer to
question as to how long she lived on Sec
ond street before she went to l. street, she
said she did not know that she ever nVeo
on Second street, and as her counsel oD-
jected to the question 1t remained uhan-
swered. She thought she should have at
least 500 month TO live on, but acknoWl-
edged to Mr. Breuner that she never had
500 month, or even 500, to spend. Mary
Jane Talmadge, she said, had told her
that her father had $40 900 in the bank.
Attorney 5. Luke Howe read an ain
davit that states that the person known
rs Justice OF the Peace Gray OF san ran
cisco who is claimed to have married the
couple, is not a judicial officer, and that
no marriage had taken place. IL also de-
MED all the allegations OF cruelty, ana
also that he had more than Sl2,OOO IL The
bank when he was married.
Mr.. Talmadge was then put on the
stand to testify, and was examined at
considerable length by A. j. Bruner ana
:. Luke Howe, his attorneys, ana =. l.
Jones and J. B. Devine, attorneys for the
pIaintitf. He testified that he held an
estate in trust for his children, and that
he had not for two years past made any
thing from his ranch. He was worth
something more than he was at the time
of his marriage.
Counsel for the plaintiff asked for an
allowance OF 500 month, or at least $40.
for the plaintiff, arguing that she needed
more than her board and lodging, ana
that she should have money for her other
EXPENSES. Her rooms would cost her
about SIS a month, if she WAS TO live IN
proper style for one in her position.
The Court said he did not see any
necessity OF her expenses being any such
amount. He thought that 500 month
would be ample for her needs, and after
listening TO the arguments of counsel, he
made an order allowing her $40 month,
500 for counsel fees aud $40 for expenses
of court, and refused to increase the al
lowance, saying that she had no children
to support aud he considered il sufficient
Tor her needs.
The injunction on the defendants
property was removed, so far as concerns
the money on deposit in d. .. Mills
Bank, i'll order that he might pay the al
Iowance, his taxes and some assessments.
There were some spirited discussions
between the attorneys, the motion of the
plaintiff having been for $3.50 monthly al
lowance at first and $3.50 after the decree,
SI50 court expenses and $1,000 attorneys
ices, and certain real estate
The Court thought the attorneys fees
asked were too large. and when they
called his attention to fees allowed in
similar cases in San Francisco. said the
practice did not prevail here and that he
could not see any reason in making them
large because the estate was a good sized
one,