The San Francisco call., 1896-03-09
of land decided TO the latter under

recovery of land deedeo 10 the latter unoer
promise of marriage.
Mrs. Titus was once the wife of Pedlina.
She became divorced, and it was on the
completion of recent arrange ments for a
second marriage that the property was
conveyed to the man.
James Pedlina is a restaurant-ownera at
IA First street, near the Market-street cor
ner. About twenty-five years ago he and
Miss Josephine Rupli were married in this
CITY, and it is the bride of that time that
was plaintiff in the recent proceeding for
the recovery of the McAllister-street land.
Mr.. and Mrs. Pedlina lived together about
fourteen years. One son was born, and
he, about 20 years of age, resides with his
mother.
Eight years ago; or about that, Mrs. Ped
lima became acquainted with DR.. Titus,
whose office was then in the Phelan build
ing. Not long afterward she obtained a
divorce from Pedlina and Immediately
married DR.. Titus. The latter then gave
up his extensive practice in San Francisco
and removed with his bride to Arizona,
where he became general superintendent
of the State Asylum for the Insane. His
home was at Tucson.
The new life in Arizona did not entirely
please Mrs. Titus, so she abandoned her
second husband and returned to this City.
From that time she earned her own living
as ianitress of one of the public schools in
the Mission, supporting and educating her
son.
She was never divorced from her second
husband, but DR.. Titus died a couple of
years ago.
After the death of DR.. Titus, Pedlina and
his former wife met and became reconciled,
and finally they agreed upon a remarriage.
Mrs. Titus owned a building lot on Nc
Allister street, near Central avenue, and a
part of the marriage agreement was that
Pedlina should erect house ON that lot as
q home for the family-Mr. Pedlina, Mrs.
Titus and their son.
To facilitate business matters Mrs. Titus
gave a deed of the building lot to Mr..
Pedlina and Mr.. Pedlina faithfully carried
ont the first part of his contract and erected
ono of the prettiest little houses in that
part of the City.
Rnt then came a hitch. Not the matri-
monial hitch that had been marked down
in the family plan, but disagreement be-
tween Mr.. Pedlina and his past and ex-
pectan. bride.
Mrs. Titus began suit for the recovery of
her real estate, alleging that Pedlina had
refused to carry out his promise OF mar
rage. and that the only claim the man
had to the property was the one which he
had obtained by fraud. The case was to
have been brought up in the Superior
Court. but Mr.. Pedlina avoided the public
rebearing of his matrimonial and real
estate transactions by an unconditional
surrender of the property.
The woman's lawyers were preparing TO
have Pedlina arrested for fraud and to sue
him for $25, coo damages on the allegation
of breach OF promise, when compromise
was agreed upon. Pedlina decided back
the building lot, and with it he gave the
new house to his divorced wife.
Further than that, he paid all the costs,
and Mrs. Titus has profted by the venture
10 lust the value of the new mouse. one
and her son have moved into the place,
but the remarriage has been lndehniteiy
postponed. :-.ht tror,
$4,000 to $40, ,Oc0.