The herald., 1897-02-02
A HUSBANDS AL|MONY
The Claim Held to Be Per.
fectly Good
IN THE Case Of s. v. LIVINGSTON
Judge Allen Rebukes the Daugh-
ter of Defendant
CAPTURE BY AN OFFICER
OF Two Horse Thieves Who Have Long
Been Wanted
"Kld" Thompson Again Up for Trla Of tn,
Roseos Robbery
The Alaniz VIII Case Grinds Slowly
Along-List CT Term Trial Jurors
in Department One-A Curious
CAPTURE BY AN OFFICER
OF Two Horse Thieves Who Have Long
Been Wanted
"Kld" Thompson Again Up for Tria Of tn,
Roscoe Robbery
The Alariz Will Case Grinds Slowly
Along-List CT Term Trial Jurors
in Department One-A Curious
Judgment Reversed

The interest in the sensational Pasa-
dena suit of S. w. Livingston against
his wife, Mary A. Livingston, wherein
he sued her for support, will be revived
now that Judge Allen has rendered a
decision in which, while deciding in favor
OF the aged plaintiff, he scathingly re-
Dukes both wife and daughter for their
actions
The plaintiff. who is now S3 years of
age. and the defendant, who is now in
heI eishtieth year, intermarried in 1881,
at Minneapolis, Minnesota, and subse
uuently removed to California, where
they have resided for several years
past. Shortly before such removal,
plaintiff sold out his business, receiv-
ing for It about $500, and defendant
sold her home place
The property so sold was owned by
each as separate estate. The separate
property of the plaintiff seems to have
been consumed by travelling expenses
and by ordinary course of living. OF the
amount realized by defendant from sale
of her property. there appears, from
what transpired during the trial, to re-
main only $400 in cash, a house and lot
in Pasadena, worth about $3500, and
about $4,000 invested in mortgage and
other interest bearing securities Plain
tiff has now no separate property. there
is no community property, and the only
property owned by either, at present,
IS the separate property of defendant,
above enumerated.
1t appears from the testimony that,
ever since their intermarriage, until
within the past year, plaintiff and de-
fendant lived happily together. and not
until the daughter Of defendant, by d
former marriage, came into the family,
was there any conflict between the par
ties. defendant Appears to be under
the control of this laughter, between
whom and the plaintiff. says the court,
there seems to exist mutual hatred and
distrust." Shortly after the advent OF
this daughter into the family, defendant
was Induced to take steps toward having
an inquest of luracy upon the plain
TN, with the view of having him con-
fined In an asylum, Upon an examina-
ton before the Judge in this depart
ment, he was c.sct d gsd. Afterwards
plaintiff brougki sdi. III divorce. which
was dismissed.
A THORN IN THE FLESH.
The court is satisfied" says Judge AL
len, In his opin: N. that the trea tment
OF plaintiff by def ndant and daughter.
with the knowledg. and acquiescence
or defe d -ne. was such as to render the
life of plaintiff unpleasant in the ex.
IRENE; tnat, at one time, when plaintiff
was weak and emacfated from disease
and when. as the testimony of the ply.
sician shows he required careful nurs-
ing and treatment, by defendants con-
sent, physician was sent for not to
minister to his wants, but to examine
defendant with view of again institu-
ting proceedings looking toward his con-
nnemanf
time when he was so weak physically
that he could have injured no one, had
he been so disposed, nor does the testi-
mony show any grounds for believing
that he was insane. The testimony
further shows that, by reason of certain
advanced notions in relation to the
preparation and serving of food, enter
fained by the daughter, whom defen-
oant permitted to manage the affairs
or the household, coupled with a fear.
upon the part of plaintiff, that corspir-
acy existed to poison him, the plaintiff
did not have the nourishing food which
MS age and habit of life required.
A GOOD SAMARITAN.
A neighbor noting his condition took
plalntiH Into his family and kept him |
Tor several months, until he regained his |
health and strength; that the defendant |
elo not visit him while he was thus
away, but. after the lapse of se&eral |;
months, plaintiff called upon the de- |
Ienoant. who invited him toNagain re- /
turn to her home. This the plaintiff did, |
put, Wnen the hour of retiring came, /
ne was Eiotified by the defendant that he I
could not occup, the bed and room,
which the aged couple had occupied for i
many years as the family sleeping apart !
mert but must sleep in another room, !
the only entrance to which was from the |
rear porch. To this plaintiff objected and !
nnally occupied the front room of the |
house as his sleeping apartment. The |
sequel to this disagreement as to the |
sleeping apartment resulted in another
affidavit, made by the defendants con-
cent for the arrest of the plaintiff. upon
what charge Is not shown in the testi- |
mony, but upon which a warrant of
arrest was issued. although not served.
Plaintiff, being advised Of the proceed
ing looking to his arrest, left the house
OF defendant, and has ever since re-
mained away, except two visits made
during the daughters absence
A HUSBANDS ALIMoNY.
The court is satisfied from these and
many other facts ELECTED at the trial
that case of desertion is made out
under section 9S, civil code. And the
question Is now presented whether or
not husband wha, without cause or
provocation, is drivAn from his home
and ts wholly WithouSthe means of s,n-
port, and is unable, from infirmity. 10
support himself, can Maintain an.action
against the wife for reasona BILE allow
ence for his maintenance out of her
separate property. Were the parties re-
versed in this case. there certainly could
be no question that, under section 1a7
of the civil code. wife could maintain.
such an action, nor would 1t be neces-
sHry to allege or prove such desertion
for any fixed period. (Hardy VS.. Hardy.
81 Cal. page 1851 A plain remedy is
there provided, and we are led to inquire
whether or not the radical change from
the common law, wrought by our code
as to the property rights or husband
and wife, has placed the parties on an
equal plane before court of equity.
90 that whatever rules shall apply ia
one shall with equal force apply to the
other. '"e
Husband and vie contract toward