The record-union., 1896-07-23

ness and contempt. She was often
spoken of in her own presence and in the
presence of her husband and others, as
that woman" or ''the woman. Her
complaints of this treatment to her hus-
band were usually met with indifference.
and sometimes with anger. On one oc-
casion in July, 1895, when the defend
ant was temporarily absent in Sacra-
mento the two daughters who had been
! for~some time absent, came home and
Locked plaintiff from good part of the
house, threw down her photographs in
the parlor, and otherwise lll-treated her.
The defendant came home that evening
and in the morning plaintiff complained.
She asked: why do you allow it," He
replied: Il can't help it! Don't you sup
pose it makes me feel bad, their doing
all this? | can't help it!' She said:
why don't you take me to some other
place, if you consider this their house
end they are entitled to it?'' He replied:
No; if you stay here you will have to do
the best you can. l cannot do that at
ALL If anybody must leave you must get
OUT
The defendant was the master of his
own household, and it was the PLAINTIFFS
right to have and his duty TO see that
she received kind, civil and respectful
II eatment.
That the plaintiff was subjected to
grievous mental suffering for great
part of the time while she remained
with her husband, by reason Of the
treatment which she received from him
and the two daughters mentioned, is
clearly established by the testimony.
1t must follow, therefore, that the
plaintiff is entitled TO the divorce de
manded, and to relief in the nature Of
alimOny.
The circumstances of the parties are
such that it is better that the relief
should be IN single lump sum, rather
than by monthly allowance. 90 Cal,
| 511)
II is the duty of the court under Sec
ton 139 of the Civil Code, where a di
vorce is granted for the offense of the
husband ito make such suitable allow
ance to the wife for her support dur
| ing her life, or for a shorter period, as
the court may deem just. having regard
TO the circumstances of the parties re-
spectively.
| On the subject of the rule for de-
termining the compensation proper in
| such cases. the Superior Court, in eX-
parte Spencer, SO Cal, AGA, said: 'It
proceeds upon the theory that the hus-
band entered upon an obligation which,
among other things, bound him TO sup
port the wife during the period of their
| joint lives, and gave her a right to share
in the fruits and accumulations of his
skill; that by his own wrong he has
! forced her to sever the relation which
! enabled her to enforce this obligation,
and for the wrong which thus deprived
| her of the benefit of the obligation he
| must make her compensation The
court is to fix the measure of that COM
pensation by having regard to the cir
cumstances of the parties respectively
those circumstances furnishing the best
means for determining the extent of
| her loss"
More than half of the defendants es-
tate passed from his control to a trus-
tee for the benefit of his children on
the 10Th day of September. 1893. as has
| been already stated. The remainder
of his estate, consisting Of the farm on
which he resides and of cash money in
bank, may be fairly estimated at the
value of not less than S3S, 900.
The sum of $4,000 will, in my judg-
ment, be reasonable and sufficient sum
tor the compensation to which plaintiff
is entitled. Findings will be filed and
judgment entered accordingly.