The record-union., 1896-07-23

is the daughter OF CharleS " L Ialf1lduge
and is joined as defendant on certain
avermentS that she received from her
father voluntary conveyance on all
his real estate and certain personal
property, in which the plaintlH claimed
community interest, and that Such
conveyance was made to defraud the
plaintiff. But the action against Mary
Jane must be dismissed, as 1t appears
that the property conveyed TO her was
the separate property Of her father The
conveyance was made nineteen days
after the marriage, and before the
| plaintiff had acquired any community
| interest in the property conveyed.
part of the property thus conveyed
| consisted of valuable farm, which
| was the residence of the defendant,
Charles V Talmadge. The parties were
married in San Francisco on the 1st DAY
of September, 1898, and the PLAINTIFF
! did not take I'D her actual residence
On the farm with her husband until a
| few days after the conveyance was
| made, having remained in the mean
| time, pursuant to an arrangement with
| her husband, at a private boarding.
| house in Sacramento. She knew noth-
| ing of the conveyance until some weeks
| after it was made, and then found no
| fault with the transaction further than
to say that it was all right for the de-
! fendant to make provision for his chill
dren, but she thought it no more than
right that she should have been con-
suited with reference to it.
The conveyance was to Mary Jane
Talmadge in trust for herself and the
other children Of defendant, seven in
number, all of adult age, and all mar
ried, except the daughters Mary Jane
and Anna NJ. The grantor reserved to
| himself a life estate in his farm resi-
dence, a property worth about S30,o0O,
together with the rents, issues and
profits thereof during his natural life
| The conveyance transferred absolutely
| in trust for the benefit of the children
aforesaid notes and mortgages of the
value exceeding $40, 600 He retained
about S12,0 in cash in bank and about
81 ,000 worth of other personal property.
At the time of his marriage on the 1st
of September, 1898, his estate was of
the value of about $780, 600. After the
trust deed of the 10Th of the same
month his estate was reduced to the life
| estate in the farm and its income, and
about $4,000 of money and other per-
! sonal property.
| AS near as can be ascertained from
the testimony, which is quite meager on
| this point, the net income of the farm is
about $1,000 per annum. When they
married Mr.. Talmadge was Il years of
age, and Mrs. Talmadge was II. She
| had no property. For some three years
before the marriage she had earned her
living by employment in respectable
way in a candy store in San Francisco,
but for about two months prior to her
| first acquaintance with the defendant
| she had been an inmate Of house OF Ill
fame in Sacramento 1t was in this
| place that the defendant met her, and
| after visiting her there few times, she
removed to private lodgings, where he
kept her as his mistress for about two
months, when they went to San Fran
! cisco and were married on the lst OF
| September at the residence of her mar
ried sister by a Justice of the Peace, IN
| the presence of several Of her relatives
and friends.
Although there is some dispute about
it, the weight of the testimony is that
on the occasion of his marriage he told
| her friends that he was worth SlOO,O0O
| that he wanted it understood that his
| family should have half of his property
and that he and Martha, his wife, should
have the other half 1t may be men
toned here that the landlady of the pri-
| vate boarding house in Sacramento
| where the plaintiff resided for some two
months before the marriage and fol
about three weeks after the marriage
and a married sister and married cousin
of plaintiff were witnesses at the trial
and all testified that they had never
known nor heard that the plaintiff hac
been an inmate of a house Of ill-fame
and from all the evidence there is nc
reason to doubt that such fact had never
been heard of by plaintiffs relatives anc
friends in San Francisco.
The defendant married the plaintiff
after an acquaintance of two month:
and of full knowledge of who she was
and what her previous life had been
They each assumed to the other all the
duties and Obligations in law and il
morals which are imposed by the mar.
riage contract and relation, and all pas
offenses were mutually condoned. There
is no allegation by either against tht
other in their pleadings except that o.
cruelty, and there is no proof that either
violated the marriage vow in any othel
way. They lived together as husband
and wife upon the farm Of the husband
for about two years.
| In regard to some particular occur
rences bearing directly upon the issues
during this period, there is some con
fiict in the testimony, but the genera
course of conduct by each of the partie!
TO the other is made fairly manifest.
i shall not undertake to detail the evi
dence in support of the conclusion Il
which have arrived 1t will be sufficien
to say that it satisfactorily shows tina
the plaintiff suffered injuries and indig
mites at the hands Of the defendant an(
two of his daughters 50 serious an(
grave as to render her life intolerable
The plaintiff performed all those house
hold labors and duties which fall to the
lot of wife in the humblest of families
without the aid of a servant. and did th5
same willingly and for purposes OF econ
| omy.
Some idea of the attitude and de.
meanor of the daughters toward her
and of the general nature of the com
plants against her. may be formed
from some of their expressions on the
stand as witnesses at the trial Anna
NJ, when asked how the defendant
treated the plaintiff, said: HE treated
her too kindly to suit me-" This wit
ness said she had never spoken to plain
tiff. and Il have never mentioned hel
name and will never do it unless l an
obliged to-
| In speaking of her conduct the witnes:
said: Her actions were very bold: sh'
/ l-sl &c
only one who had any right there
l L LIZ. IL. -