The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1911-12-29

than from persons Of mature years.
There is but one ray of hope ex-
tended TO the two contestants by the
court, and that is, they can wait for a
year from the date of their reparation,
or until next September, when they
might use for a divorce on the ground
of desertion. OF this matter Judge
Buck said: IF the parties to this ac-
tion really desire a divorce they will
have to wait until the statutory time
has run.
No Reconciliation
While refusing to grant the decree,
Judge Buck did not delude himself that
there was hope for a reconciliation IT
would seem, he declared in closing his
opinion. that there is not much hone
for the parties to this action to again
get together. and under the power in
vested in this court by section 136 of
the civil code OF this state provision
will be made for. the payment of GER
tain sum of money monthly by the de-
fendant to the plaintiff"
At present Moore is paying his wife
$500 month.
In his opinion, Judge Buck gave Mrs.
Moore clean bill of morals, assert
ing: I will say that there has been no
evidence presented to warrant this
court to find any act of infidelity on
the part of the plaintiff with Doctor
MacMonagle or with Mr.. Fenwick. AS
to the charges of adultery made against
the defendant by the plaintiff, no evil
charge.
The Doctor MacAIonagle whose name
was mentioned in the complaint was
that of DR.. Beverly MacM9nagle, the
Mr. Fenwick' was Frederick NJ. Fen
wick. president of the Yosemite Lum-
ber company. Moore named neither
MacMonagle nor Fenwick as co-respon-
dents the only mention of their names
appearing in relation to alleged indis-
cretions of Mrs. Moore. In her COM
plant Mrs. Moore charged her husband
with adultery, but offered no evidence
to support her allegations.
No Improper Conduct
While Mrs. Moore was freed from
the stain of improper conduct, she was
not cleared Of the grievous solecism
of lacking in tact. For" said Judge
Buck, with charming naivete, in dis
missing the CORY testimony of how
Mrs. Moore scratched her husband S
face until it bled and the evidence that
Moore repeatedly struck his wife until
she was bruised and painfully injured,
while there are some acts verging
upon cruelty presented by the plaintiff
(Mrs Moore), it certainly seems to me
that. all such acts were invited-at
least IL they were not invited there was
certainly lack Of tact usually attribu
ted to women in trying to avoid these
little unpleasant affairs
The recital of these little unpleas-
ant affairs" was what made the report
of the Moore trial run like a trail Of
blood
The Moore case was marked by the
most violently contradictory testimony;
and the contradictions did not end with
the recital in court. Yesterday Attor-
ney William IL JORDAN, WHO conducted
the case for Mrs. Moore, declared that
his client had told him that Moore had
pleaded for reconciliation. Il UNDER
stand" said Jordan, that Moore has
been to his wife in San Mateo, and on
his knees has pleaded with her to take
him back. But do not think that the
couple can be reconciled-"
More Fighting Likely
Moore has never gone to his wife
since the divorce suit and has made no
effort 10 effect a reconciliation" said
Z. B. McC1anahan. attorney for Moore,
Yesterday. Il do not see any possi-
bility for a reconciliation"
Neither attorney would comment on
the ruling of the court.
Their troubles are not yet over, for
there will be lively fight on the ques-
tion OF a monthly settlement. which
Moore must pay. in accordance with the
intimation OF the court In her suit