The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-03-24
A REMARKABLE DIVORCE SUIT
1t Was In the Courts For Fifty Years
Before It Was Settled.


San Francisco Chronicle: An early
romance IN the career of a prominent
merchant OF San Francisco recently
! had 2. sequel, - which a golden COM
pensation was made 10 Offset an indefi-
/ mite amount OF spiritual and other in
+ jury.
! The story begins in 1858. 1t wound up
few days ago. In October of that year
! a complaint for divorce was filed in the
old district court OF San Francisco.
{ The complainant w2s Sophie Finck,
/ and the defendant, julius Finck, now of
T the wei known firm OF Will & F'icck.
The document recites that the parties
were married in New York on Feb. II.
( 1883, land that in the following month
of March they arrived in this city. Here
they lived together few months, when
Finck went to Victoria, B. G, failing.
it is alleged. TO make any provision for
the wife during his absence.
The record shows that the case was
referred 10 u. s. Love, to take testi-
mony, and his report was filed on Jan.
8, 1853. In this he sets forth that after
he had declared his opinion that the
plaintiff was entitled to divorce, the
original dispositions were ''felOniously
stolen" from his Office. a month later
the court granted a divorce to the
plaintiff, as appears by an entry in the
register. bul 10 Written decree OF IlHQ-
ings were flied.
The failure 70 have q decree signed
and. entered left the parties still. in
legal effect. man and wife. In this I'M
settled condition the case reDoSed for
80 long years.
Meanwhile. the parties, it appears.
believed themselves divorced. Finck
prospered in business and accumul2t-
ed considerable property, but did not
-. ~,
San Francisco. She recently acquired
some notoriety through her suit against
the estate of the late w. A HOlcOmb
of Oakland TO recover a large sum for
services as nurse and housekeeper, al
legged to have been rendered him for
many years prior to his death,
Not long ago 3. B. Newman. who
was Mrs. Fincl5's attorney in the Hol-
comb case, had occasion to examine
the record in her divorce suit against
Finck- He found that, without notice
of any sort to her or her attorney,
some lawyer, whose name does not ap-
pear on the record, acting in Finck's
behalf, had caused findings and a de-
cree to be signed and filed in 1889
awarding divorce to her on the
ground of defendants extreme cru
city" But there was no reference to
community property. The decree was
signed by Judge 7. II. Rearden. to
whose department of the superior
court the case had been transferred,
and was properly entered Though
this was done. as stated. in 1889. it was
dated 'nunc pro tune as of Feb L,
1884,
Notice Of proceedings to have the de-
cree set aside was served on Flnck
last December. and, after much delay.
the matter has been settled out of
court, through his attorneys. He at
first refused TO believe that the woman
was living, but when he entered a law
office one day, she arose and con
tronted him with the question:
Julius, don't you know me?"
Yes, L know you" he at once re-
sponded, and passed into the inner
room without another word. The won-
ans attorneys soon after received
$500 as a. balm for her lacerated at
lection and in full satisfaction of all
claims against Finck
Puck: TN leave it to any of the fell
lers if you didn't cheat"