The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1897-07-21
SOME ODD COMPLICATIONS
A Household Divided Against Itself
With a Vengeance

An odd and complicated divorce suit
came up in Judge Yorks department
yesterday in which there is about $50, 900
worth of property involved.
The suit has been brought by Mary ].
Pattison against James H. w. Pattson,
Frank ]. and Maggie Pattison, and
George Mccarthy and her husband. The
plaintiff and the prir cipal defendant
were married in Los Angeles in 1894 and
the husbands two daughters, Maggie,
aged II, and George, aged Is, lived with
the newly-married couple in the Fort
Hill house. 1t is alleged that the girls
drank to excess and cussed and swore
like little troopers. They also stayed out
late at night and consorted with lewd
and immoral people.
Shortly after the marriage these
daughters scandalized their step-mother
and when demonstrated with called her
D. old slop barrep' and other
choice epithets In April of last year
George married and defendant gave her
house on Olive street. Mrs. Pattison
thought if the girl Maggie would go and
live with her sister she might have peace,
but her husband would not have it.
Frequently Mrs. George would return
to the old home and relieve herself by
cussng her step-mother, and on one &C.
casiCn last November she dragged Mrs.
Pattison across the room while the
daughter Maggie threw coal at her. And
this in the presence of the husband, who
made no remark. These curiously dis
posed daughters even went to the length
of threatening to put strychnine in Mrs.
Pattison's food.
AS a consequence of the abuse Mrs.
Pattison became nervous and i'll and in
fear of her life She now claims that the
defendants conduct to her both before
and since their marriage has been false
and fraudulent, and she believes he did
so only to further his designs, and after
their 'consummation compel her to get
a divorce.
In a recent suit brought against him
by his sister and others it developed
that Mr. Pattison had, without the
knowledge of his father introduced
number of interlineationS in deed made
by his father to him to one lot The suit
was for an accounting. The marriage
took place during the tendency of this
suit, and the defendant then represented
to his fiancee, who was also his cousin,
that he had won the suit, whereasit had
gone against him. She returned to her
home in Missouri and he in writing to
her said that when she returned, and
previous to their marriage, he would
settle certain amount of property on
her. In 1894 she returned to Los An
geles and he assured her that he had
made certain settlements. On the very
day of the marriage, but prior to the
ceremony, he went before a notary and
purported to convey lots and II, block
Y, of the Also tract, to the plaintiff
This deed was never recorded, however,
and it has since developed that these lots
| belonged to defendants father and were
two of those fraudulently inserted in the
deed referred to. At the same time de-
PENDANT made number of other con-
veyances not as plaintiff alleges, for
the purpose of passing title, but to de-
fraud her Of her marital rights.
Mrs. Pattison claims her husbands
estate yields about $3.50 per month, and
she asks that she be awarded an al
lowance of $500; that she be granted a
decree Of divorce, awarded the Fort Hill
homestead, a reasonable amount of all
mony, and that the several deeds be de-
clared null and void.
The plaintiff filed an amended COM
plant yesterday, and 80 the case was
| continued to be reset.