The San Francisco call., 1896-01-12
4 SANTA CRUZ ROMANCE,
Elizabeth R. Stewart Wins Her
Famous Divorce
Suit.
The Woman to Whom Stewart Decided
the Estate Must Surrender
Her Title.

SANTA CRUZ, CAL, Jan. 1.-THE case
of Elizabeth R. Stewart VS.. John R.
Stewart and Catherine Mckenzie eft al,
which has been in the courts of this county
for the past three years and has occupied
weeks at time, was decided today by
Judge Breen. The action was in
stituted by the plaintiff to sever
the bonds OF matrimony existing between
her and the defendant, John A. Stewart
She also sought to control the legal title to
certain property alleged to belong to the
community, but standing on record in the
name of Catherine Mckenzie
In his findings Judge Breen says the
personal history of the Stewards shows
them to be persons of intelligence, liberal
education and well-established social po-
sition, and that the four children are not
inferior in that respect to the parents
Three of the children are in California, two
of whom, the sons, espoused their mother S
cause and the daughter their fathers.
In the wife's petition Catherine Mckenzie
was named as correspondent.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant,
John A. Stewart, is the son of John and
Mary Stewart; that his father was an Off
Ger in the British army, stationed at Malta
when John was born. In infancy he was
taken to Corfu, Greece, thence to Aber-
nathy, Scotland, and was sent to Edin-
burgh to be educated for medical mis-
sionary. While pursuing his studies he
met the plaintiff a maiden Is years OF age
of good social position, and married her
ten years later. While on his vacation
preceding his marriage he visited the
Tsla of GHrva y-ba ba
teaching, and there lived with Peter Nc
Caskill, whose eldest child was Mrs. Cath
crime Mckenzie (nee McCaskilD, a girl of
tender years. Peter and his daugher Cath
crime went to Edinburgh, and Stewart
went with them. He was to supervise her
education. It is claimed that at this time
his relations with the girl were more than
those OF a friend. He offered to marry
her, but was refused.
Having graduated as physician Stew
art married the plaintiff, went to Foo
chow, China, to reside, and amassed quite
a fortune from the pracJice of medicine.
Here their children were born, and they
lived happily for eleven years. In 1876 the
plaintiff returned to Europe to educate
her children. The husband speedily fol-
lowed and remained with the family one
month. While in Glasgow he again m ct
Catherine McCaskill. who in the meantime
had been married and was the mother OF
several children. Stewart and Mrs. Nc
Kenzie crossed the Atlantic, she being en-
route TO Boston and he for China via the
| United States. According to an under
standing they met in Santa Cruz and es-
tablished themselves on a fruit ranch
EY1nWn ha Nd IaI n.
Stewart. There they resided together.
Mrs. Stewart claimed a plan was con-
! cocted between them to defraud her of her
rights and that Stewart executed and de-
llvered to Mrs. Mckenzie a conveyance of
certain land. She, ignorant of the infidel-
lty of her husband, came 10 Santa Cruz in
1881 to join him, and on meeting Stewart
after an eight years absence was received
coldly, repulsed, i'll treated and was con-
strained to join him in the execution OF
articles OF separation.
On the other hand, John Stewart claimed
that he was brother of Mrs Catherine
Mckenzie. He claimed he lived with his
mother until II years of age, and was then
taken to John and Mary Stewart. who
adopted him in place of dead son. giving
him the sons name. At 16 wears Of age
he returned to his real father. Here he
first met Catherine Mckenzie. He claims
that she was not the cause of his being
alienated from his wife, but that Mrs.
Stewa1t's frequent drunkenness was the
cause.
In closing, the Judge says that from the
testimony he finds DR.. Stewart is not what
he represents himself to be, but that he is
the son of John and Mary Stewart; that
he is not the brother of Catherine Nc
Kenzie. The divorce is granted, and in
regard to the property he declares the
transfer of the Etha Hill vineyard to Cath
inc Mckenzie fraudulent, and that the
Etha Hill property be reconveyed to them,
and that all the community property be
apportioned between Eliza beth P. Stewart
and John A. Stewart the former to receive
two-thirds and the latter one e-thlrd.