The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1895-07-30
WHARTON DIVORCE CASE
The Defendant Gives Testimony Co
Corninp Hfa Affairs

corning his Affairs.
The Wharton divorce case was still on
trial yesterday in Judge Johnson's conrt.
Richmond Davis testified that when
Mrs. Wharton signed the deed to her
husband she knew that she was signing
deed.
Mrs. Wharton, ST., testified that the
deed to her was executed some time be-
fore she knew there was any action for
divorce, and recorded before she knew Of
Wharton's debt to an Auburn man.
Clinton l.. White objected to the intro
auction OF the deed from Wharton to his
mother, as it showed some erasures, but
the court allowed its introduction, and
Wharton testified that the erasures and
changes were made before he signed the
deed, and that his mother had an interest
in the property, but that the interest was
not OF record. He thought that the deed
was not acknowledged by him until some
time after 1t was made on account of the
debt. He could not remember whose
name had been erased in the deed, and
the court said 1t was very strange that he,
lawyer. could not remember such an
erasure as that one and an erasure OF the
date. Wharton persisted that he remein-
bered nothing about it.
Mr.. W bite asked him if he could not,
by holding the deed up to the light, see
! that the words erased were land Hattie
w hartOn, his wife," and was answered
that he could not, and could remember
nothing of the sort.
He denied making any threats against
Maggie Brown in case she testified
against him, and said she told him that
she was going to testify to everything she
knew and would ruin Mrs. Burweil. lie
did not threaten MIR. Prince. but told him
Mrs. Burwell did not give him money TO
pay for the furniture. He was never
caught in Mrs. BurwelPs room at l
O'Clock in the morning, and was never IN
her room at that time or shad any i'm
proper relations with her. He also de-
MED calling his wife and child vile names
and driving her from his house. They
agreed to separate, and he PAID her rent
and gave her sufficient money to live on.
He had always provided for her support
and clothes and had bought her many
more clothes than she had testified TO.
he testified, on cross-eXumlnatIon,t that
after he had commenced proceedings for
divorce frem his wife he slept with her,
and that he saw no Improperly III so
| doing as long as the court had not pro-
nounced them divorced. He indited
| something in the shape of an application
from her divorce, when she said that II
anyone got divorce she wanted TO get IL.
They signed all agreement that II she
| WOoAb AClOooO OfOi h0i PAOPSASJ
he would allow her $50 per month. lie
| never paid her the so nor any part OF 1t.
| The upper floor OF 1925 | street was lifted
up to receive tirst-class tenants. mat
was the reason he spent that amount OF
money on it. He admitted that there was
an understanding between them that a
divorce should be procured.
| He was subjected to long and search
ing crosse Examination by Mr.. White,
who ask ed him some very pointed ques-
tons as to how much he thought was
sufficient amount for his wife TO live on,
| and similar matters.
| The case will be continued to-day.