The San Francisco call., 1896-12-12
F, v, DAVIS AND HIS
TWO YOUNG WIVES
Judge Hebbard's Lament
able Error Finally
Corrected.
Declared, by Default, the Annul.
ment of a Legal
Marriage.
Shown That the Husband Was Over
IS Years of Age When He
Was First Welded.

Judge Hebbard yesterday presented F.
w. Davis with one more wife than is usu-
ally regarded as necessary for an ordinary
citizen. Mr.. Davis was already living
with one good woman in Santa Rosa,
aud evidently did not wish to be burdened
with another, but the court did not think
that the young husband had legally freed
himself from his first matrimonial alliance
before entering into the second, and that
is why CONSERVATION reigns in the Davis
household.
Attorney w. w. Davidson, representing
Mrs. Mae Davis, the first wife, brought up
the record 10 show the following state of
facts: F. w. Davis and Mae Davis were
married in San Diego in Septembe 1894.
ard went to Los Angeles, where he de-
serted her few weeks later. She was in
destitute circumstances, and was be-
friended by the ladies of the Womens
Christian Temperance Union and was as
sisted in her desire to return to her par
ents in San Diego.
Davis returned to the northern part OF
the State and in April of this year his
mother brought suit in his name and her
own against Mae Davis to have the mar
riage annulled, alleging that her son was
given her consent she alleged that The
marriage was null and void.
Mrs. Mae Davis and her parents were
too poor to employ q lawyer, so the case
was allowed to go against them by default
on the 29th of last May. On the 5th OF
June following Judge Hebbard entered
decree declaring the marriage annulled.
Subsequently Davis married a worthy
young woman In Santa Rosa, in this In
stance taking the precaution to secure his
mothers S consent and approval.
When the matter was drawn to Judge
Hebbard's attention yesterday he seemed
to DE greatly surprised to learn that he
had made so grievous an error as TO de-
clare annulled legal marriage; an error
that forever clouds the lives of two women
and one man, though the man may not be
held entirely Dlameless unless he pleaded
that in what he did he was swayed by the
indiscretions of youth.
Attorney Davidson stated the matter
very clearly. He said it was admitted that
Davis was only few days over 18 years of
age at the time of the marriage and that
his parents had not assented TO the same,
but contended that this did not constitute
a marriage that could be annulled.
The statute declares expressly that the
age of legal consent for male is Is years,
and that in the event of male marrying
before attaining that age the marriage
may be annuiled. If that age has been
reached then the matrimonial ties may be
severed only by divorce secured in the
usual legal manner and for statutory rea-
sons. In support of this position, the
provisions of the code and many Supreme
Court decisions were cited.
So thoroughly convinced was Judge
Hebbard OF the wrong ne had done to
Mrs. Mae Davis that he vacated the order
OF default that had been entered against
her, and on application of her attorney
dismissed the suit on the ground that
Davis being over Is years of age at the
time of the marriage the court had no
jurisdiction in suit to annul the mar
riage.
However much Judge Hebbard may re-
gret the lamentable muddle in which the
affairs of the Davis family have become
involved because of his inadvertent act in
granting annulment of legal marriage
il is safe TO say that this regret is more
than doubled by the deserted wife in San
Diego, as well as by the lady in Santa
Rosa who became Davis second wife un-
der the impression that he was legally
freed from his first marriage and presum-
ing, as she thought she had right TO pre-
sumo, that Judge Hebbard knew what he
was doing when he ordered the annul-
ment of that marriage.
Davis has no ground for divorce from
his frs. wife. Mrs. Mae Davis, and she
has legal right to claim him as her hus-
band" said Attorney Davidson. II don't
know what she intends 10 do in the prem
ises. She has the privilege of suing for a
divorce and alimony, or for permanent
maintenance, or she may condone his
acts. That is a matter for her own de-
cision."
A letter was recently received from
England stating that Davis had fallen
heir to 100000 by the death of an uncle.