The herald., 1897-04-28
WALTER vANDYKE. Judge.

cordingly.
WALTER vANDYKE, Judge.
That is the end, saving an appeal to
the supreme court, of the celebrated
Spencer case.
The story of the marriage in 1882 of
Mrs. Anna and Ambrose H. Spencer, of
his wealth and her penniless condition,
of her alleged plan to deprive her hus-
band of his money and property, of his
srhiections to her will and addiction to
the morphine habit. of the transfer of
all his property to his wife without con-
sideraton and against his will and voli-
ton, of the cruelty of Mrs. Spencer and
the humiiations she placed upon her
husband, of the old mans pitiful letters
to his children, of Mrs. Spencer's dubi-
Gus connection with Newton, and finally
of Mr.. Spencers suicide on June Q,
1895. by asphyxiation in this city; all of
this is still fresh in the public memory
and again conjures up the scene of the
rrotracted trial, with its sensational
features.
WHAT IS A TRUST?
In the voluminous opinion handed
down yesterday by Judge Van Dyke. and
quoting from the civil code, he says:
"All transactions between trustee and
his beneficiary during the existence of
the trust, or while the influence acquired
Ly the trustee remains, by which he OBJ
tains any advantage from his benefic-
isry, are presumed to be entered into
by the latter without sufficient consider
alton and under influence.
zone who gains a thing by fraud, ac-
cident. mistake, undue influence, the
violation of a trust or other wrongful act
is, unless she has some other and better
right thereto, an involuntary trustee OF
the thing gained for the benefit of the
person who would otherwise have had it.
Undue influence consists: First, in
the use by one in whom a confidence is
reposed by another, or who holds a real
or apparent authority over him. of such
confidence or authority for the purpose
OF obtaining an unfair advantage over
him; second, in taking an unfair ad-
vantage of another's weakness of mind;
CT, third, in taking a grossly oppressive
and unfair advantage of another's ne
cessities or distress"
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS
In making rapid survey of the salient
points in the case, Judge Van Dyke does
not fail to point out the discrepancies
il the statements of Mrs. Spencer.
"The defendant. testified that she was
divorced from Mr.. Coleman about 4
year before her marriage to Mr.. Spencer
and that she and Mr.. Spencer had been
engaged about nine months before their
marriage, which was one of love and
affection on her part. on the trial the
record of the divorce suit was produced
showing that the decree in that case was
entered June /, 1882, and her marriage
with Mr.. Spencer was June II, 1882, 4
little over two weeks after the divorce.
III her testimony in the divorce suit she
swore her name was Priscilla Ann Cole
man, aged 3S, and had resided in San
Francisco separate from her former hus
band several years prior to that date,
excepting about one year, which she
spent in the Sandwich islands. on the
recent trial defendant testified that after
the marriage to Mr.. Spencer in San
Francisco he went to his own room in
the Grand hotel and she remained in
her room at the Russ house. Next day,
or within few days, he departed for the
Sandwich islands to settle up some bust
ness, and was gone about three months,
and upon his return they first COM
nenced living together as husband and
wife, and soon thereafter moved to Los
Angeles.
a 'HELL" OF POVERTY
"The defendant" says the court,
"claims that at the time of her marriage
she was possessed Of $500. which she de-
livered TO Mr. Spencer on the night Of
their marriage and he took it with hira
10 his own hotel. She had, prior to that
kept it in her trunk since it had been
paid to her by a Mr.. Morgan on the sale
of some mining stocks the April or May
prior. 1t appears that while she was re-
siding in San Francisco she and an old
friend of hers, a Mrs. Springer, were
accustomed to speculate or deal in
mining company stocks, and that she
had borrowed money from Mrs. Spring.
er, but claimed that she had paid her
and had this amount stated at the time
of her marriage TO Mr.. Spencer. Mrs.
Springer, on the contrary, testifies that
just before defendant married Mr.
Spencer she stated that she had no mon
ey but was about to marry Mr.. Spen-
Ger, retired sugar planter from the
Sandwich islands, who was rich, and
that she was marrying him to escape
from the he'll of poverty in which she had
been living so long
After tracing the purchase of the sew
eral pieces of property the court makes
passing allusion to the fact that Mr.. and
Mrs. Newton lived in the cottage ad-
joining that of the Spencers and were for
time on sociable terms. Subsequently,
however, Mrs. Newton claims that the
defendant had become too intimate with