Newspaper Page Text
RENO, June 14.— Following are Califor nia couples that have married In Reno during the last year. There ls no record as to which of these, are divorcees, but the greater number are such marriages as Judge Belcher has just declared are illegal and void: 18J£-Adolph Lada to Lillian E. M. Baker. San Francisco. June 4: Joseph Naughton to Louise Van Akin, Sacramen to, June 4; Thomas B. McGlmsey to Alice Austin, San Francisco, June 5; Norman Welbanks and Fanny F. Kxickman, San THE RENO RECORD. California Couples Who Were Mar ried Across the State Line. From the foregoing views it follows that at the time th* plaintiff and Joseph M. Wood en tered into the contract in suit and at the time they Intermarried in the State of Nevada, the plaintiff possessed no legal capacity to marry any person 'save her divorced and then living husband. Smith, and as a corollary— the facts considered— that the plaintiffs contract was against the law and cannot be enforced. It will be seen from this decision that, while working the undoing of an ante nuptial contract, the Judge has done no more than refer to the traveling mar riages, but In doing so he has dealt them all a facer, and the contracting parties are put In such a position that they may have to call in the parson and have him tie the knot over again. There is. hope in the Supreme Court, however, but there is not much, for love Is a thing unknown in its decisions and neglected 5n Its pleading, but it may be that Dan Cupid may appear for plaintiff and secure a decision favorable to those he has got in such a fix. The contract In suit was entered into in Cali fornia and ls sought to be enforced In Califor nia, Confessedly if the marriage of the plain tiff and Joseph M. Wood had taken place, in California it would have been void. Is the ante-nuptial contract a valid contract merely because the marriage was performed in an other Jurisdiction? Section 61. Civil ! Code, contains no penal clause as stated, but it does contain words of nullity and words which suspend the operation of the decree: that is, words of personal disa bility affecting the parties 'to the decree for the full period of one year, and these, in my es timation, cannot be avoided by merely Invok ing another Jurisdiction for that purpose. The language of the statute ls unambiguous and but one interpretation is possible. The law of domicile is Invoked and the law of domi cile controls. No other Jurisdiction can relieve against it. The plaintiff had full knowledge of the law when she made the contract in ques tion and, being herself the inhibited party, has nothing to complain against in view of an ad verse decision. This view would be different, of course, if she were the Innocent party, but she entered into the contract open-eyed. Ue sldes counsel have shown that she is in fact provided for as a residuary legatee of the tes tator, Joseph M. Wood, and that a homestead has been carved out of his estate and set apart vlded for her as his wife. She made claim to his estate for the amount of her con tract money, and this was denied by Judge Troutt, before whom the estate was being probated, bo she sued before Judge Belch er to compel the performance of the con tract by Wood's executors. And now Judge Belcher has not only refused to al low her anything on the ante-nuptial con tract, that he says was not followed by a marriage, but he has kicked the whole matrimonial bucket over and has spilled hearts in every direction. Irays Down the Law. In his opinion Judge Belcher refers to section 61 of the Civil Code, which ls the one referring to the rights of divorced persons to remarry, and which was amended by the Legislature in 1S97 to pro hibit their remarriage under any circum stances until a year after the decree has been granted. Proceeding on from this reference he says: The purpose of the section as amended by the rider of 1S9T was to correct a great public evil which had become too rife— to put a stop to marriages within the period of an appeal from the decree of divorce, which might be and sometimes had been reversed, with great ecan d&l to the parties who had married again. It ls proper for the Btate to regulate marriages. If this power to regulate did not exist there would often be Indecent and Bhockinf? associa tions of the eexee — even Incestuous and polyg amous marriages could be contracted. Un doubtedly it ls immoral and against public pol icy that a divorced person 6hould be permitted to contract a lecal marriage pending the right of appeal and while it is yet uncertain what the final ludement will be. The rider to the section, therefore, 1b addressed to the effect of the decree— something entirely within the control of the law-making power and its effect ls to regulate or establish the status of the par ties to it during the period named. The status of unmarried persons is controlled by other statute*. Not all unmarried persons may legally marry. Even when they are of proper age unmarried persons are in some in stances disabled from legally contracting mar riage. In some Jurisdictions one or the other party to an action for divorce ls, after decree, perpetually disabled from contracting a legal marriage. In this Jurisdiction both parties to a divorce proceeding, after decree, are for the full period of one year .therefrom, disabled from marrying any other persons than them- Eelve6. The divorcees may marry but within the period of one year from the date of their decree neither of them can legally marry any save the other party to the divorce proceedings. To be sure, there is no penalty attached to disobedience of the law; nevertheless, the law, though it will not punish the disobedience, will not recognize in those who disobey it (whatever their contract may be) any status other than that which it fixes Itself, which, in the instance of a divorced person marrying any other than the person mentioned in the statute within the period of disability, is that of an "unmarried person." Not a Xiegal Marriage. Francisco, June 5; J. Llewellyn Williams to Mollie E. Chase, Oakland, June 6; Gurden C. Awbrey to Dellc Creighton, oiiasta County, June 12; Edward Vale to Carry K. I'epinn, San Francisco, June 17; Robert R. Dalzell to Cora M. Blakesley, San Francisco, June 19; Jacob Nuckolls to Mrs. Emma West, San Francisco, June 19; Joseph Beccuti to Enrlchella Domo ronio, San Francisco, June 14; Henry H. Macvine to Josepmne Bonnett, San Fran cisco. June 21; i-tichard P. Sorenson to Jensine f. Sorenson, San Francisco, June 22; William E. Hasklns to Margarete A. Stevens, San Jose, June 24; Benjamin Adler to Frederloka V. Dunbar, San Francisco, June 26; Gideon S. Brower to Elizabeth A. Neilson, Fresno, 'June 27; Charles A. Kelly to Emma F. La Bralrfc, Petaluma, June 28; Sheridan Vincent to Rose B. Morrow, Tulare, July 1; John W. Macbride to Ethel C. Smith, Shasta Coun ty. July 2; Frederick Kllllan to Annie La Daum, Sacramento, July 3; Frederick Belcher to Sarah O. Regan, Jamestown, July 3; Burrell G. Smith to Addle Garling tonhouse. San Francisco, July 3; Chester M. Harmon to Clara M. Hauser, Fresno, July 3; Alonzo Kingsbury to Flora J. Stenhouse, San Francisco, July 4; E. B. Valenzuela to Anna Boero, San Francisco, July 4; Martin J. Troy to Edna G. Snook, San Francisco, July 6; Alfred Donahue Co Viola Doughty, Redding, July 7; Eugene H. Bruce to Grace G. Mason, Marysville, July 8; Harry H. O'Dell to Julia Shanna han, San Francisco, July 15; John M. Evans to Elizabeth A. Kenney, San Fran cisco, July 15; Charles P. Lorensen to barah Shane, Placer County, July 17; Henry James Nichols to Galbie Thomp son, Crockett City, July 17; Charles F. Infield to Mary E. Shields, Sacramento, July 19; Albert C. Rodgers to Annie Brad flelds, Los Angeles, July 20; Rolla W. Doig to Lucretla B. West, Sacramento, July 23; Richard James to Rosie Quirola, Sierra City. July 26; Joseph R. Watson Jr. to Abby Fassett, Oakland, July 26; Wil liam T. Tindall to Mary H. Heimtzen, Marysville, July 26; Otto A. Singleton to Lulu Cushman, Colusa, July 27; Virgil M. Chamberlain to Jessie Hampton, Santa Rosa, July 29; Clifton E. Brown to Ida May Howard, Truckee, July 31; Joseph C. O'Neill to Ida L. Will, San Francisco, August 5; George H.. O. Sunderhaus to inaude V. Miller, Butte County, August 5; Newt W.: Redman to Lillie Efhardt, Coulterville, August 9; William S. Costner to Edith Lehy, Newman, August 9; Platt B. Elderkin to Marie A. Bidwell, San Francisco, August 11; Arthur Schloes to aarah Degman, San Francisco, August 14; ivi.ark C. NVood to Lulu M. Butz, Visalia, August 14; J. W. Cummins to Jessie E. Thompson, San Francisco, August 17; Wil liam T. Gilbert to Julia Shobert, Watson ville, August 17; Peter Sorensen to Niel sine Anderson, San Francisco, August 17; Joseph Robinson to Callie VestelrMendo-. clno County, August 19; Theodore E. Payne to Lettie Hoye, Fresno, August 18; John. M. Wiegand to Clara A. Black. Si erra County, August 19;Georffe W. Loeh to Adele C. Weatherwax, San Francisco, August 19; Bruce Henderson to Etta Cart wnght. Red Bluff. August 23; : Richard Gamble to Sarah Lundin. Amador County, August 24; Harry, E. Wamsley to Lois L. Hawthorne, Oakland, August 25; Herman Schonfelder to Etta Maggee, Oakland, August 2S; Emil Dun to Lena Brann, Oak land, August 28; Ernest Muller to Gussie Miller, Los Angeles, August 28; Bruce D. Kimmis to Etta E. Brunstine, San Fran cisco, .December 2; Frank Poe to Mrs. Phoebe Hays. Tulare County, September 2; Thomas E. Sweeney to Lizzie J. Leach, Truckee, September 11; John J. Gaynor to Kate E. Leahi, Eureka, September 5; Richard A. Dominguez to Alta Gracla Perez, San Francisco, September 5; Chris tien Oesch to Kate Stratton, Napa, Sep tember 6; Lewis Banchg to Louisa O'Neill, Haywards, September 6; Stephen L. Handy to Almyra L. Shellard, San Francisco, September 8; William N. Price to Catherina Nagle, Oakland, September 10; Frederick A. Osborn to Helena H. Hen.ne, San Francisco, September 12; Pat rick James Costella to Mrs. Kate C. Levl, San Francisco, September 11; Moses A. Bryan to Lucinda Condon, Redding, Sep-' tember 13; Simon C. Hornefl to Elizabeth J. Simonds, Oakland, September 14; George C. Horneff to Alyce K. .Nickson, Red Bluff. September 18; Will Lussler to Annie B. Welden, San Francisco, Septem ber 22; John E. Russell to Hattie Bird, Los Angeles, September 23; Dr. Victor G. Vickl to Clara Holzhausen, San Francisco, September 25: Francies A. McMahon to Mary E. Fanning, San Francisco, Septem ber 26; Albert K. Newman to Emma Van Cleve, Sierra Valley, September 26; Thomas A. C. Cox to Leila- A. Stuart, San Francisco, September 28; Robert H. Cran age to Alice Dickinson. Sacramento, Sep tember 28; James M. Moffltt to Ethelynda A. McCrumskey, Santa Ro3a, October 29; Peter Pasquelll to Mary Dorge Layolton, San Francisco, October 6; Burt Patrone to Nora Walker, Woodland, October 5; John E. Johnson , to Fuettle Hardester, Napa, October 7; George Welch to Mae Lucretla Orvis, San Jose, October 7; Elvin E. Townsend to Emma Chapman. Wat son ville, October 11; Grant Trumbull to Laura Laney, Lassen County. October. 17; Paul Dubois to Carry Adams, San Fran cisco, October 18; Dave Norris to Mar garete Melster, San Francisco, October 19; P. A. Lawson to Ethel Jack, San Fran cisco, October 23; W. M. Ward to Mrs.L. J. Hayes. San Francisco. • October 24; Wyman Bellah to Belle Long, Sonoma County, October 25; •Thomas B. Morrow to Laura V. Doran, Stockton, October 25; Robert H. Love to Maude Lindlg. Sacra mento. October 26: .Walter B.' Estes to Nina B. Johnson, Overton. November 2; Thomas A. Pettius to Lydia Sculike, San Francisco. November 5; Joseph T. Sur bough to Ophelia R. Adams, Colusa Coun- 1900— John Blohm to Caroline Jusch, Woodbridge, January 20; David J. Thomas to MelsenaJ. Rich, San Francisco, Janu ary 24; George T. Gray to Minnie T. Ber ger, San Francisco, January 23; W. D. Calloway to Louise E. Campanl, • Placer ville, January 8; Leon D. Harris to Mary E. Evans, Butte County, January 27; Ran dolph-P. Roper to Annie -. Corty, Napa, January'30; Lapsley D. Armstrong to Margaret F. Corty, Los Angeles, 1 January. 28; Charles L. Brace to Minnie A. Mc- Gregor, Oakland, January 28; William S. Judklns to Mary J. Burney, Satley, Jan uary 23; - Harvey * W. Masac to Mary, W. Davis, Los Angeles, February 3; Louis .W. Lennlger toNenna A. Cutler, San Fran. Cisco, February 3; . Lee Pearson to Saran E. Gilbert. San Jose. January 5; Sam Solo mon to Esther Wolff,' San Francisco, Jan uary 5; Patrick .Troy to Eliza Rope, San Francisco. February 10: Philip F. Good man to Addle Gallard, Sutter Creek, Feb ruary-3; Andrew-B. Gerlach' to ~ Annie Graeter, Sacramento, February 7; "Nicho las C.-Kosta to Lillian T. Nolan. Oakland, February .'9; A. H.: Bocarde to Lillian Mehler, San Francisco, February 13; Lov. ell Rickabaugh to Grace M. Nolan; San Francisco. February '6; Otto Wlesman to Agatha Horn, San Francisco, February 17; -James- S. Harrison to Laura -E. Hlckok, San Francisco, February 10; Thomas J. Qulnn to Mary M. Gilllck, Vol- ty, November 6; Joe E. Plenty to Mary Silva. Oakland. November 6; Charles II. Albright to Jessie May Allen, Los Gatos. November 8; Frank A. Allen to P^mellne- Wardrobe, Stockton, November 9; Robert F. Ball to Sarah E. Province, Fresno, November 9; William M. Gibson to Ger trude L,. Walling. Stockton, Novem ber 10; Thomas O. Wingate to Dora Thompson. San Francisco, November 10; Charles F. Miller to Sadie E. Ingsam, Truckee. November 10; John F. Mackee to Lottie M. Sewell, Magatie, November 13; Mat Antonovich to Marie Baker, San Francisco, November 13; Walter S. Boyd to Callie Sims, Dunsmulr, November 13; Josiah Duftield to Lena E. Armstrong, Keswick, November 15; Charles C. Turner to Margaret Van Norman. Oakdale, No vember 15; William Carter to May Ed wards, Fresno, November 19; James K. Hamilton to Grace- D. Wetwerth, Ala meda, November 19; Herman Hoist to Mary Peterson. San Francisco. November 20; Harry B. Mulford to Nellie G. Mart land, San Francisco, November 21; Fran cis H. Randall to Clara MacConnell, Sac ramento, November 22; Harvey R. Steph ens to Martha J. Henson, San Francisco. November 23; William Staples to May Houz, Eureka, November 23; Juan Jose Arzava to Esther Silver Elorduy, San Francisco. November 23; George E. Ellis to Leora E. Swenson, Stockton, November 25; John H. Lee to Mary E. -Ellis, Sart Francisco, November 25; William H. Bai ley to Ada Maulsby, San Francisco, No vember 26; Frederick L. Wissman to Jes sie Hopkins. San Francisco. November 29; Alfred Hocking to Isabelle Cook, San Francisco, November 29; F. H. Wheeler to Marie W. Jackson, San Francisco, No vember 30; George O. Allen to Llllie May Wells, Sacramento, December 4; Harvey E. Wetherby to Barbara E. Bauer. San Francisco, December 1; Manuel Faustlno to Marie Oreves, Vallejo, December 5; Samuel Femburg to. Sarah McDonald. San Francisco, December fi; William C. Koch endorfer to Mary H. Hogan, San Jose, De cember 6; Joseph H. Johnson to Sarah A. Caine, San Francisco, December 10; G«orge W. Graves to Lillian A. Rainer, Alameda. December 13; John D. Richie to Emma Randolph, Sacramento, December 17; William A. Rainier to Josephine Graves, Elmhurst, December IS; John F. Corrlca 'to Mary F. Duarte, San Fran cisco, "December 18; Charles D. Roe to Grade M. Prochold, Amadee, December 18; Joseph L. Smith to Katie Rodegerdts, Sacramento. December 19; Thomas -A. Craln to Mabel J. Bingham, Beckwlth, December 20; Drury P. Osborn to Dora King, Fresno, December 30; Frank J. Bylngton to Agda McNatt Ochda-gde Remme, San Francisco. December 31; Randolph H. Harrison to Belle M. Gans, San Francisco, January 3,n900; John Vernon Klmball to Marion F. Featherstone. San Francisco, January 8; William S. Alexander to Ber tha S. Lunda; San Francisco. January 8; John H. Barhill to Allle Logan, Lbs An geles, January 10; William. S..Osbourn to Ella Clifton, Covelo, January 10; Joshua P. Abbott to M. G. Abbott. Antioch, Jan uary 10; Albert S. Woodbrldge to Helena S. Ogden, Oakland, January • ll; Henry Sims to Mary E. Long, San Francisco, January 11; Hector O. ' Legue to Mary Smith. Allegheny, January 18; Douglas R. Blacklott to Leoni I. Barr. San Francisco, January. 18; Benjamin J. V. Merle to Emma J. Harris. Crockett, January 17; Jacob Peter to Elizabeth P. Olsen, Rodeo, January 18; William -Wright to Mrs. H. Spears, Sierra Valley. January 18; William Caldwell to Emma Klemkauf, San Fran cisco, January 17; Henry Dunlap to Mrs. Katherina Langham, San Francisco, Jan uary 15; Reuben S. Boone to Alice Lewis, Woodbridge, January 15; Robert Ful ler to Johannah F. Melnert, Fruit vale, January 22; John Querren to Laura Smively, Tracy, January 20; Oscar A. Florey to Alma O. Porter, San Jose. December 2; William Darling to Jen nie Bowden, Amador, December ?3; Eu gene F. Pratt to Lena K. Cline, Golden Gate, December 25; Everett S. Ede to Sa die Hobson, San Jose, December 25; Fred R. Hitchcock to Ella Holden, Sander, December 26; Eugene N. Deuprey to Flor ence Craig, San Francisco, December 28; George A. Smith to Amelia Anderson, Oakland, December 28; John F. Townes to Etta N. Knowles. Oakland, December 29; Charles A. Schild to Clara - A. Dorman, Yreka, December 29. The Judge, the Severed Couple and the Defeated God of Love. (Altogether, since the law was passed, there have been over 800 couples from this State seeking in Reno release from the one-year provision.) » . tT in proper for the State to regulate marrlasres. . < Undoubtedly it is Immoral and ngalnnt pnblic policy tliat a divorced person should be permitted * to contract a leicnl marriage pending the right of appeal and while it is yet uncertain what the final . Jadirment Trill be. The purpose of the wectlon (61 of the Civil Code) was to put a atop to marriages within tne # period of an appeal from the decree of divorce. The Mntii* of nnmarrled persons ls controlled by other statutes. Not all unmarried persons may • Ieffnllr marry. In thin Jurisdiction both purlieu to a divorce proceeding, after decree, are for the tall | period of a year therefrom disabled from marrying any other perionx than themselves. Section 01 contains words of nullity, and these cannot be avoided by merely invoking another . Jurisdiction for that purpose. . ¦ The law ot domicile Is invoked and the law of domicile controls. No other Jurisdiction can re- . lleve against It. The plaintiff possessed no legal capacity to marry any person save her divorced and then living < husband. . J THERE will be broken hearts and marriage bond* piled high In the scrap heap If the Supreme Court does not stand In with Dan Cupid | and undo the marital mischief Judge Boleher is working. He has declared from the bench and in an opinion riled yester day that "Reno" marriages are not what they should be— In fact are nothing at all, and with a rubber stamp and a file mark he has threatened to sever all hearts that were made one acrofs the border and in defiance of the divorce laws of this State. And all because Mrs. Abble Rose Wood wants some of the money left by the man she thought was her husband. Ever since the Legislature sought to throw an extra obstacle in the way of the loving: by putting a time limit on their affections Nevada has been the refuge of the lovelorn who cannot wait- The code says a person divorced may marry again only after a year has passed from the time of the decree, but Nevada un derstood how It was. She had ministers herself with just as grood a marriagre cere mony as could be found In California; so ; the legally single sought her sands Jn blocks of five, including the witness, and ecored one on the home State. But now Judge Belcher declares that California ' law will not stand for Fuch a proceeding; that the fact that couples go over 10 Nevada especially to evade the law of Cal ifornia is sufficient to nullify the min ister's blessing: and though wedded the travelers are singularly smgle- Where Are They AtP There are close to two thousand people who, having been freed from one matri monial tangle, plunged into another be fore the season ooened and did so by means of the friendly offices of the sister State. According to the opinion of Judge Belchfr they have not been married at ell and in consequence their position is an interesting: one. The central idea of the opinion ls that the matrimonial emi grants are domiciled in California; that they peek Nevada for a special purpose, and that one forbidden by the laws of this: State — their domicile; that they never give up their domicile in this State and that they return and resume it as soon as they have done what is forbidden hero. What would be illegal here is illegal else where, the Judge contends, when people po elsewhere to evade home laws and then return home ¦when they have accom plished their purpose. Simply an Evasion of the Law. It was contended In opposition to this that a marriage legal in the place where it is solemnized ls legal everywhere, but Judge Belcher evidently takes into consid eration the intent to evade the home law as outweighing other contentions, for he says in his opinion that under the laws of their own State matrimonial pilgrims have no right to marry any one except their divorced spouses until a year after the de cree of divorce. He does not consider change of location any plea for legality so long as they retain their residence in California. The case that has caused all this trouble is a suit brought by Abble Rose Wood against the estate of Joseph M. Wood to recover $10,000, the amount specified as consideration In an ante-nuptial contract, in which she agreed to allow Wood to do as he pleased with his property after mar riage. This contract was made In Decem ber. 1S97, five months after she had been granted a divorce from Robert S. Smith. The legal propriety of this State suggest ed that 6he wait until the following July before she linked hearts and hands with "Wood, but they could not wait so long with Reno bo rear, so they fled to the Nevada town and were Bpliced on January 1. 1891 They did not know what legal pos sibilities were in the ceremony. Wood died in June. 1S98. a month before the probation of the former Mrs. Smith should have ended, and in his will he pro- A Decision That May Sever Over Eight Hundred Couples. Case Not Yet Completed, and Pro ceedings Postponed Until To-Morrow. The application for a writ of mandate to secure for Frederick J. Patek, a cred itor of the city, some of the St. Mary's Park fund/was on trial toefore Judge Sea well. yesterday morning. It was not fin ished, however, .a postponement being taken until to-morrow morning, at which time Mr.- McEnerney will close the argu ments. ¦ The attorneys for the petitioner opened the argument In the morning. It was contended that there had been no specific assignment of part of the tax levy nor of the money raised from It to any such purpose as the establishment of a public park to be known, as St. Mary's Park. That being the case • it * was claimed the Treasurer had no power to form such a fund arid no right to assign any- of the public taxes to such a fund. Harry. Creswell appeared for the,Audi tor. He called attention to the fact that by resolution of the Board of Supervlso.-s the improvement was -provided for In the tax levy by raising the rate 3 cents ana 33 mills, and that even If there had been no special provision for such a fund stil! the tax levy spoke for itself and it was proof that, it .was. the Intention to form such' a fund and that the money was collected from the people for just such a purpose and no other. • !'7r«r>*« ¦ m ¦ i ¦ ' ¦ - Postage Stamp Advertised Picnic. The Letter Carriers' Association 'held a special meeting atPostofflce Station A on Wednesday on call of W. H. McNuIty of the -picnic committee to consider the ob jection made by the postal authorities to the use. of a postage stamp reproduction on the advertising banner for the picnic to>be held at Schuetzen Park, July , l, by the letter carriers of this city. Secret Service Agent Hazen had objected to the stamp as contrary, to the United States laws. ¦ He : said, however, that what ' had been exhibited would not be objected to but- that- no -more' use of -the stamp for advertising, would-be permitted. MORE ARGUMENT ON THE ST. MARY'S PARK FUND cano, February 20; Ferdinand E. "Wood to Nancy E. Sheridan, Redding, February 20: August Genster to Seraphine Day, San Francisco, February 23; Benjamin Albert Curtaz to Alice May Hesse, San Fran cisco, February 11; William C. Cain to Alta Alspaugh Lincoln, San Francisco. February 15; Aaron W. Hill to Lottie Weaver. Fresno, February 26; W. W. Ful ler to Nuta E. Modle, San Francisco, February 26; Lawrence J. Hagerty to Emma L, Gabriel, San Francisco, Febru ary 16; George W. Edwards to Elizabeth Nicholson, San Francisco, February' 26; Charles B. Burr to Mamie B. Bond. Mor gan Valley, February 28; Henry F. Bonnl fleld to Ethel L. Bogard, Ukiah, March 1; rsarso Leppl to Eugenie Porter, Sacra mento, March 8; John M. Cooper to Joel len Boring, Pasketa, March 9; G. S. Brown to Miss Georgia* Hall, San Fran- Cisco. March 12; C. A. Fullerton to Katie Green, Santa Rosa, March 12; J. L. Wil son to M. C. Woods, San Francisco, March 12; J. M. Caulson to Mrs. Bessie Logan, Idria, March 14; William J. Belcher to Susie E. Cain, Sacramento, Feb ruary 18; Herbert H. Huntley to Jennlo E. Fagg. Vinton, March 7; D. J. Walsh to Mary Freeman, San Fran cisco. March 19; W. L. Smith to Carrie H. Wood, Oakland. March 20; Samuel R. Johnson to Mary E. Sllva, Sacra mento, March w5; Joseph Reed to Amy Sllvey, Brbderick, February 27; Carlos Casaez de Caro to Lillian May Templeton. San Francisco, March 23; John H. King to Mary M. Wilkinson, San Fran cisco, March 28; Sylvester Pearl to Fannie L. Johnson, San Francisco, March 31; Rubin M. Bean to Harriet J. Cooper, San ta Margarita, March 27; Abraham -G. Ja cobs to Mildred H. Armara, San Fran cisco. March 31 f Wallace Crosby to Min nie Wilson, Redding, March 30; Charles Warwrath to Minnie A. Dean, Sacra mento, April 2; James H. Martin to Lucy A. Coats, Healdsburg. March 25; Peter Coordt to Jennie Stone, San Francisco, April 2; David B. J. Smith to Margaret Hill, College City, April 9; Mirian W. Littlefleld to Marguerite F. Richmond, San Francisco, April 9; Robert Buchanan to Emily Whitaker, San Francisco, April 11: Michael Broedel to Mellie Delvack, San Jose, April 11; Albert J. McFarland to Edith Graves, San Francisco, April 19; John Francis Stanley Russell to Mollie Cook, London. England, April 15; Orrln Ralph to Celia E. Gulnn, Sonora, March 2S; Louis Rannelll to Minnie Jonas, Oak land, April 18; Marlus Burnett to Mlgnos Wares, San Francisco, April 17; Alford Holmes to Isabel Fernandez. New Idria, April 17; I. J. Waters to Lucy Cahlll, Fort Bragg-, April 21; Joseph Lutza to Jane Fuller, San Francisco, April 26; W. L. Carson to Nellie Lawson, Oakland, April 26; Harry Erutig to Maud Fisher. Gilroy, April 27; Edwin M. Carson to Olive F. Oruver, San Francisco, April 29; Toby G. Hughes to Flora Seibert, San Francisco, April 30; John P. Shumate to Ida B. Dick son, Sacramento, April 30; Hermann En gel to Freda Mahler, San Francisco, April i£; Jasper Williams to Anna Rohr, Sacra mento. April 23; William B. Geiser to Maud P. Croley, San Francisco, April 29; Arthur A. J. Martin to Kathrine A. Mar tin, San Francisco, May 2; William Peters • to Julia Block, San Francisco, May 6; Charles W. Bennett to Anna A. Palmer, Fresno, May 7; Lewis Isaac to Mary J. Vicinto, Oakland, May 11; Frederick L. Handson to Klla F. Martin, San Francisco, April 16; G. F. Becker to A. S. Williams. San Fran clsco, April 16; Julius H. Miller to Emma Stockton, Healdsburg, April 30; J. R. Nes bitt to Ellen Rlley, San Francisco. May 2; James R. Wilson to Laura M. Bradford, Palo Alto, May 2; George Tuiggs to Eve lyn Martin, Sacramento, May 8; Luther H. Phillips to Frances H. Marques, Yreka, May 9: Abner Wildey to Minnie A. Ham ilton. Packenta, May 10; Will E. Harris to Lillian Blachman. San Francisco, May 14; Frederick Gramberg to Minnie Lare, San Francisco, May 16; Frank Hailing to Aline Kutzer, San Francisco, May 17; John H. Cantrell to Mary E. Henderson. Redding, May 18; Frank C. Nelson to Har riet A. Scott, Sacramento, May 17; Arthur E. Crozler to Laura Colter, Sacramento, May 19: Walter B. Blrdsall to Carrie Cun ningham, San Francisco, May 19; August Schivo to Kittle Patrino, Santa Rosa, May 22; John Q. Arnott to Ida C. Baker, Oak land, May 24; Alexander "K. Percival to Mary B. Odell, Oakland, May 28; Joseph Goddard to Annie Smith. San Francisco. May 27; James E. Griswold to Beatrice Thompson, Sacramento. May 28; George H. O'Day to Cora L. O'Day, San Fran cisco, May 28; John H. Weddle to Sophie Mattley, Sutter Creek. May 16; Charles P. Harriman to Ella R. Johnson, Colusa, May 25; Charles H. Lord to Ida Mulligan, Los Angeles, May 26; John P. Drury to Sara J. Yates. Eureka, May 26; John E. Davis to Llllle M. Banta. San Jose, May 21; G. D. Hirschler to Julia F. Hasovcr. Florlston, June 1; A. G. Dear don*, to Julia McLenan, San Francisco May 27; Frederick P. Henrich to Margaret L. Pease. Sacramento. June 2; Robert A. Stit to Mrs. Cora M. Stone. San Francis co, June 4; Maurice M. Durbin to Mar guerite Fulton, San Francisco, June 6; Ju lius C. Ddbbel to Mrs. Maggie L. Hilton, Haywards, June 6; Albert Gelsselmann to Helen Clevers. San Francisco. June 6; Charles F. Seiss to Amelia Bischoff. San Francisco, June 7; James A. W. Wardale to Debora Hefferman, San Francisco, June 12; Guy H. Cornell to Mrs. Mabel Holmes Sonora. June 8; Henry Olsen to Pauline Fessler, San Francisco, June 12; Ira W Stroud to Mary E. Burton. San Dipgo, June 13; John O. Miller to Edna E. Cart wright, San. Francisco, May 29; John Gent to Mary Carr, Oakland. May 30; Mark S Morse to Harriet E. Robinson. Oakland May 30; Joseph A. Manor to Muriel M Horan. Williams. June 3; Henry E Leav itt to Ella L. Butler, San Francisco June 7; Charles B. Overacker to Edna S. Ham mer. Oakland, June 9; George H. Joesink to Mabel V. Soute. Sacramento, June 9* John A. Keler to Mrs. Mary F. Sargent Oakland, June 12. Judge -Belcher De clares Void. Ne vada Marriage of the Divoreed. SOME POINTS FROM THE COURT'S DECISION. THAT LITTLE TRIP TO RENO MAY HAVE MEANT A CEREMONY, BUT IT DID NOT MEAN A WEDDING THE SAN FRANCISCO CALIi, FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1900. 14 Grey Enamel Ware. Prices Cat Away Down. Come Just to Look. Great Americai IbwhUbe Tea Ci MONEY-SAVING STORES. n&-?12 Grant Ave. (Bet. Sutter and Pott). Ul Market EL <Opp. Powell). 340 Sixth St. EU Hayes St. Tit Third St. 141* Polk St. C2l Montcomery At* itJ6 Mitclon St. 70S Larkin 8t. 10OC Sixteenth St. ISIS Deriaadere St. J4C Ninth St. <7S Haieht St. :COS Flllmor* St. ZtSl Mission St. tZ M&rket St. 2712 24th St. OAKLAND STORES. ]CU Wachlnctoa &u tie £. 12th St. 12Z7 Broadway. ll« Z2d Avi. liltl Seventh St. 12U Park Bt^ AlameiU. MARKET and POST STREETS. Will close their store at 3 P. M. on Saturdays, and other busi- ness days at S P. M. June 3Oth to September 1st, inclusive. SHREYE & COMPANY ADVERTISEMENTS. I SHEET MUSIC : I >/2 OFF \ * TO EVERYBODY. * t PIANOS SOLD at $4 P£B KONTfl. { * NO INTEREST. +c *S. F. MUSIC CO.,'* * 225 SURER ST.. abote Kearny. * O* ************ ¥¥¥¥¥4O ADVEHTISOCEUTS. Ladies' tailor-made suits, silk «klrts, fur capes; liberal credit. M. Rothschild. 528 Sutter.* ¦¦ GALABARGAIN~|ftJ y||Ji§ Friday and Saturday w\ ijaSSSnl/ On 0 UP Second Floor in Our /SSSfe ||gSrm Popular Juvenile Department. \rM&W } /i I \^ \\a School daj-s are over. And now the little chao \1^\l I // I Xill/V w111 £° rollicking. Jumping and have all the fun 1/ Wll A 1 \l / that he deserves, for his vacation days are at 1/ \V/// I \\ hand, and we have all the things that ha requires; II viff I ' K*— _ A] that he can knock about In; that he can have fun • / \ u£ > I! in: that he can keep comfortable in, and that he / J r^^ ¦will look nice in — everything that he needs, mind I yVAl \M>J you, in wearables, and of course at tha Frisco I '///Ul \ A Y Boys' tiny prices. .. I //ll W) !Two Right Swell Fashions Rl 1^^ When we scy ripht swell fashions, we mean ' vWpvjSJ'ih the smartest things in Juvenile finery of the- aea- 1 *J<CS$T Those two suits which we picture in thla ad* \\ { *VflTft vertisement are two very swell creations. \A I >A The Sailor, with its long trousers, is an ideal v> I tf W Vrt garment, made from high-class blind cheviot, >. _ \ V I a*w-- V» which is the newest weave in cheviots; handsome- • C^^S^ I Vw$H/fc4cA ly braided, with its ions trousers; pretty emblem « ?x?5fi0!, I VT^5*$«^iri on tne shield, with its French cuff; a handsomely I$J0j^Jf> I WlTTr^ L& gotten up suit; one that you would never regret fuffT^ I w/// Jx) paying $6 60 to $7 for. j> kJJ. »|7 ft yeJn'MS Th ' s ls one ot the thln P s we invite you to for *\V/ I// *S fl jLylf^ Friday and Saturday matinee. At . %T\ ]l IS? \fA Sizes 3 to 10 years. " W jl U /tM7 That manly little suit which you see plctured% VU |l ' m /MrA with the vest. Is one of the suits that we hava V\\ JK > fh \yjS5§& taken the town by storm with. i/) \\\(W£. u\jrj&?3$ It's a pretty little douMe-breasted silk bro- ff/ \\V/wS \M ivFSSk caded vest in plaid, and the coat and trousers ara X\ WtjZ&Z T/VlwflSi of that very handsome blind-weave blue cheviot; I \/C< .. w/£B^flr an awfully dressy affair. We could tax you $S for U /jf\S\ . Mrl«2? \\ this suit and give you good value at that. .For \\ y/vl jfy llAai^ \\ chaps between the nse* of 3 and 10 years. Xoth- 'If */(rJ lAMfll \» Ing prettier, nothing more stylish, nothing half as l|/f fPC? Eg Jijk \ This is one of the features of our Friday and 1/1/ Jfcif V vftl 1 Saturday matinee. . At i -. . ., , . : IN //\ Kef/ Of course, we could tell you of other Interest- // \JJL Wf \ Ins things that we arc going to show for Friday II KV^ M s? and Saturday, but we don't want to use up all the i ii«j> \LU\ /A valuable space of this paper, and we want to re- \LJ[\ \fA \ serve some surprises for you at the store wnicn J&*Q& Y2 //J will come to you by the way of a very agreeable >/^>5t \SU ///¦Ml surprise in price-makinff for hish-clasa big bojs Oi^C^Sk MM RAPHAEL'S (Inc.), V/W \ (\!rv/ "I Cor * Kcapn y St - and Unicn-Squars Avo. IH (