Anita M. Wiley vs. Henry C. Wiley - Divorce
Here are some of the documents of the divorce case of Anita M. Wiley vs. Henry C. Wiley. They are stored at the Huntington Library in San Marino. I had them copied and then transcribed them from handwriting to text. I may have made a few mistakes because the handwriting was hard to read.
The complaint was filed on April 27, 1882, and decided on June 1, 1882. Both parties agreed to waive a trial by jury, letting the judge decide the case. Among the alledged complaints of the plaintiff was that Henry Wiley committed adultery with a Mrs. Butler in Tucson, Arizona. This was the only complaint that Judge Sepulveda considered not proved. He dissolved the divorce and gave Anita most of what she wanted. Apparently, no alimony was approved.
Case No. 1509
Superior Court, Los Angeles County
Anita M. Wiley
vs.
Henry C. Wiley
Complaint in Divorce
The plaintiff complains of the defendant, Henry C. Wiley, and alleges:
1st
That plaintiff and defendant intermarried in San Diego in the State of California in the year 1853, and ever since have been and now are husband and wife, the one to the other.
2nd
That plaintiff is now, and for the period of more than twelve months continuously immediately preceding the commencement of this action has been a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
3rd
And plaintiff on her information and belief alleges that defendant did, on or about the 1st day of June 1880, commit adultery with one Mrs. Butler, whose Christian name is unknown by plantiff, at Tucson, in the Territory of Arizona.
4th
Plaintiff further alleges, on her information and belief, that defendant, on [illegible] days and times between the first day of June, 1880, and the commencement of this action, has committed adultery with the said Mrs. Butler, and is now living and cohabiting with the said Mrs. Butler at Tucson, Arizona.
5th
Plaintiff further alleges that each and all of said acts of adultery were committed without the consent or cuinivance of plaintiff, and that she has not lived or cohabited with defendant since she became cognisant of the several acts of adultery complained of as aforesaid.
And for a further and separate cause of action plaintiff alleges:
1st
That on or about the 4th day of March, 1879, the said defendant disregarding the solemnity of his marriage vow, willfully and without cause deserted and abandoned the plaintff, and ever since has, and still continues to so willfully and without cause desert and abandon plaintiff and to live separately and apart from her without any sufficient cause or any reason, and against her will, and without her consent.
Plaintiff further alleges that plaintiff and defendant are the owners of that lot of land situate in the City of Los Angeles, State of California, known as the homestead of H. C. Wiley and Anita M. Wiley, the plaintiff, described as follows:
Commencing on Fort Street at the corner of lot no. 9 of block no. 4 and lot no. 10 of block no. 4 of Ords Survey, running thence with the line of Fort Street northeasterly 60 feet; thence southeasterly and parallel with the line between said lots 9 and 10, 140 feet; thence southwesternly 60 feet parallel with Fort Street; thence northwesterly along the line between said lots 9 & 10 to the beginning, being a portion of said lot no. 10, block 4, of said survey. Which said property was the common property of plaintiff and defendant, and upon which a homestead was heretofore declared by said Wiley, defendant, for the amount of five thousand dollars, which said homestead has since been abandoned, and is now in full force and effect.
And plaintiff further alleges that she is the owner of the following described real estate situate in the County of San Diego, State of California, and in the City of San Diego, described as follows:
Old Town, lot no. 4, block 427.
Old Town, lot no. 2, block 450.
Old Town, lot no. 4, block 380.
La Playa, lot no. 4, block 166.
La Playa, lot no. 2, block 123.
New San Diego, lot no. D, block 791.
New San Diego, lot no. E, block 804.
New San Diego, lot no. K, block 799.
New San Diego, lot no. I, block 799.
But plaintiff alleges that while she is the rightful owner of said lots, [illegible] the decree should be that said property be set apart to her. Plantiff is informed and believes that defendant owns other property, but the nature and extent thereof and their description are unknown to plaintff.
Plantiff further alleges that she is now in unjust circumstances, and defendent principally upon her own exertions for her support and is under 45 years of age.
Therefore plaintiff demands judgement. That the bonds of matrimoney between herself and the defendant be forever dissolved. That such portion of the common property of plantiff and defendant be allowed and set apart to plaintiff as shall be equitable and just, and that defendant be enjoined and restrained from disposing of or encumbering the property enumerated in this complaint. That defendant be required to pay a reasonable sum into Court to defray the expenses of this action, and for counsel fees, and such further sum for alimony as to the Court deems just for her support during the pendency of their actions and afterwards. Plaintiff prays for general relief, and for costs and disbursements of this action.
Wm D. Stephens,
Attorney for plaintiff
April 27, 1882.
In the Superior Court of Los Angeles County
State of California
Anita M. Wiley- Plantiff
vs.
Henry C. Wiley - Defendant
Affidavit for publication of Summons
State of California
County of Los Angeles
Anita M. Wiley, of lawful age, of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, being duly sworn deposes and says:
I am the plaintiff in the above entitled action. The complaint in said action is heretofore duly filed with the clerk of this court on the 27th day of April, 1882, and summens thereupon isssued, and the said action is brouth for the purpose of obtaining a divorce by me from my husband, the defendant Henry C. Wiley, and for alimony and for setting aport to me a a just and reasonable part of the community property of myself and defendant.
I have fully and fairly stated the facts of this case to Wm, D. Stephens, Esq., of the city of Los Angeles, California, my counsel, and I am by him informed, and I do verily believe that I have a good cause of action in this suit against the said defendant, as will fully appear by my verified complaint on file in this cause which is hereby referred to and made a part of this affidavit, and the said defendant Henry C. Wiley is a necessary and proper party defendant to this action, as I do verily believe and as I am advised by my said counsel after a true statement to my said counsel of the facts of this case.
The said defendant departed from this city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, State of California on or about the 4th day of March 1879, he being at the time of his departure a resident of the said city and county - telling plaintiff that he was going to reside in Tucson in the territory of Arizona, United States of America - and affiant, upon information and belief states that he is now a resident of said town of Tucson, and is a non resident of the state of California and is now, and ever since the said 4th day of March, 1879, has been a non resident of the state of California.
That since the said 4th day of March, 1879, affiant has received letters from said defendant written by him at said town of Tucson, in which he declared his intention of not living with affiant again. That affiant has seen a letter written by said defendant to a person in Los Angeles, dated, mailed and postmarked at Tucson on the 17th day of April, 1882, in which said defendant directs that certain effects of his be sent to him there.
Affiant has also received verbal messages from defendant delivered by persons who saw and spoke with him in Tucson after said 4th day of March, 1879, and on various occasions between said date and the present time, and affiant has no knowledge or information as to his having departed from said town of Tucson, but that she believes him still to reside there. That if said defendant were a resident of the State of California, such fact could hardly occur without affiants knowledge. That since the departure of the defendant on the 4th day of March, 1879, from the State of California, he has not, to affiants knowledge, been within the State of California.
Personal service of said summons cannot be made on said defendant in the State of California, and I therefore demand an order that service of said summons be made by publication.
Anita M. Wiley
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of April, 1882.
J. J. Warner,
Notary Public
Tucson Arizona Territory, May 11th, 1882
To John F. Godfrey, Esq.
Attorney at Law
Los Angeles, Cal.
You are hereby authorized to appear as my attorney in case entitled Anita M. Wiley vs. Henry C. Wiley action for divorce in Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Cal., and to do in the premises in reposit to defending the same as in your judgement. You may determine I have no defence to make except as to the matter of the alleged adultery and would like to have you defend against that charge as well as you can.
Truly Yours
H. C. Wiley
In the Superior Court
Los Angeles
State of California
Anita M. Wiley Plantiff
vs
Henry C. Wiley Defendant
Defendant Answers
Now comes the defendant herein and answers the plantiffs complaint herein and denies
1
Each and every allegation of the plantiffs complaint.
John F. Godfrey
Attorney for Defendant
May 28, 1882
Filed May 31, 1882, A.W. Potts
No. 1509
Superior Court
Los Angeles County, State of California
Anita M. Wiley - Plaintiff
vs
Henry C. Wiley - Defendant
Findings of fact and Conclusion of law
This cause having on the 1st day of June, 1882, been submitted to the court for decision upon the complaint and answer herein, the said cause was tried by this Court (a jury having been expressly waived by the respective parties in writing). Wm D. Stephens, Esq, appeared as attorney for the plantiff and J. F. Godfrey appeared as attorney for defendant; and the Court having heard the evidence and the arguments of Counsel, and being fully advised , now finds the following facts: viz:
That each and every of the allegations in the plaintiffs complaint are true, except the allegations of adultery therein mentioned, which said allegations of adultery on the part of the defandant are not true.
And as conclusion of law from the foregoing facts, the Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of this Court forever dissolving the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between plantiff and defendant, and freed from all the obligations thereof, and that all the property in said complaint set forth be allowed and set forth to plaintiff who by her held and enjoyed forever as her property absolutely - and freed from any claims of defendant.
Dated June 1st, 1882
Sepulveda
Superior Judge
Anita M. Wiley, Plaintiff
vs.
Henry C. Wiley, Defendant
Decree of Divorce
This cause having been brought on to be heard this 1st day of June, 1882, upon this complaint of the plaintiff above named, and the answer of defandant above named, and upon the evidence taken in said action and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law on file in said cause, the said cause was tried by the Court, a jury having been expressly waived by stipulation in writing of the parties to said cause, And the Court having heard the evidence and the argument of counsel for the respective parties to this action, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court from the evidence that each and every of the allegations of plaintiff's complaint in this action are true (except only the allegation of adultery as the part of defendant wherein mentioned), and that plaintiff is entitled to the relief and judgement prayed for in complaint, and therefore, as motion of Wm. D. Stephens counsel for the plaintiff, it is ordered adjudged and decreed that the Court, by virtue of its power and authority therein vested and in pursuance of the statute in such cases made and provided, does order, injudge, and decree that the marriage between the said plaintiff, Anita M. Wiley, and the said defendant, Henry C. Wiley, be and the same is hereby forever dissolved, and the said parties one and each of them is freed and absolutily absolved from the binds of matrimony and all the obligations thereof.
And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed the homestead property mentioned in said complaint, which was selected from the community property of said husband and wife, be and the same is hereby set apart and allowed to the said plaintiff as her own property absolutely and forever, and freed from all claims of the said defendant. The said homestead property is described as follows: [see complaint].
And it is further ordered, adjudged, and ordered that the other lots mentioned in said complaint be allowed and set apart to the plaintiff absolutely and forever, as her separate property and free from any claim, interest, or right of defendant, which said lots are described as follows: [see complaint].
And it is further ordered and adjudged that plaintiff recover of defendant her costs and disbursements of this action, accounting other sum of $11 75/100.
Dated 1st day of June, 1882
Sepulveda
Superior Judge