The San Francisco call., 1899-12-03

opinion. awarding Lucy a divorce on the
ground named. $4,000 with which 10 fur
ther prosecute her action for a division
ot The community property and alimony
In the sum Of $50 a month pending the
final determination OF her action.
in his opinion Judge Jones finds that
she lived with John r. Hite. the de-
fendant. She left him in the latter part
or lSll and went 10 live near place
called Schneiders Mil. In the early part
ot 1872 she again returned 10 live with
him at Hites Cove and remained with
him there until 1880. when she went with
him 10 Indian Peak, about sixteen miles
and remained there till the latter part OF
lsS6 During this period they occupied
the same house and same room. Hite
paid her board. furnished her with cred
II and payed her bills at Hites Cove and
the Alta Ranch, where they remained
and lived together until the time when he
left Mariposa County for a trip through
Mexico, New Mexico and Arizona, max
Ing some investments. On his return
plaintif claims that their relations were
changed and they became husband and
wife, and this raises the principal issue
In this case-that Of marriage. The opin-
ion continues:
tncd on behalf OF both parties-to the
number az about one hundred-many TO
the question OF repute in Mariposa County
as 20 defendant and plaintiff being husband
and wife. and by what names the plaintiff
was there known. The large majority Of
witnesses knew her as Htes wife. Mrs.
Hite. Lucy Hite; and some as Hites squaw.
Some witnesses knew them husband and
wife: and others that they were not hus-
band and wife. Some of the witnesses who
testified that they were not husband and
wife dil on the ground that they had
never known that they had a license. or
that any ceremony. either by minister.
priest or officer 81 the law. was ever per
formed. and hence they could not be husband
and wife The defendant Hite's relatives
knew her : l,urN But all
who knew the PARTIES during the period
practically agree that from the early part
oi 1872 70 the latter part Of 1856. period OF
nearly nfteen years. the plaintiff was living
with the defendant and other witnesses
who knew the parties for a shorter period
testified 20 the same effect.
The plaintiff also knew Hite from her
childhood. And from the testimony she
desired 20 be the wife Of the defendant
She testihed that he sent for her 10 come
and ne would make her his wife. She went
20 his house. Az Hites Cove there followed
such an agreement and understanding be-
tween them. that she lived with him from
1872 10 1850 AZ Hites Cove, when he moved
10 Indian Peak and established a home,
taking her with him. remaining there con-
tinuously until the latter part or 1855 max
ing continuous period Of more than four
teen years that he lived with her before n.
became restless and went away returning
thereafter only occasionally. but furnishing
her support and paying her bills. even
though his affection for the plaintiff had
waned. Until he became infatuated with
Cecilia Nouges he recognized his obligation
10 the plaintn. And this was the first time
he made himself believe that the plaintirf
had no further claims him. or for sup
port after having recognized and ac-
knowledged her TO many people some OF
whom have testified here, as his wife for
period OF twenty-five years.
IL would be against good conscience, good
morals and against the interest Of society
for the court 20 fail 10 recognize the obli-
cations the testimony shows he assumed for
that long period
The marriage. TO my mind. is establish
from the evidence. under the law Of this
State as IL existed prior TO the adoption Of
the codes. and John r.. Hte. the def. nd
ant. should be held TO provide a support for
the plaintiff.
Defendant Hite. though in the viror OF
manhood when he hrst began 10 live with
the plaintiff. Is now an old man: .he plain
TIN. her hair almost white with age is with
out means 10 sustain and prosecute her ac-
ton. and. az II appears. without means Of
support. and means should be provided as
suit money In this case in the sum OF $1,000
And for her support and maintenance the
sum OF $50 Der month during the pendency
OF this action.
The plsintifT is entitled TO a decree OF d.
vorce dissolving the bonds Of rnatrimony ex-
listing between the plaintiff and defendant.
Permanent support is based on the prop
erty rights OF the parties-and all property
ri-hts were reserved 20 be adjusted and
tried after the court had determined the
question OF marriage and temporary all
mony and expenses of suit.