Note: This clipping was created from a page that has been replaced with a better quality image. 

Testimony in the Storke Divorce Suit All in

Auric Member Photo

Clipped by Auric

Testimony in the Storke Divorce Suit All in - Testimony in the Storke Divorce Suit All in. A...
Testimony in the Storke Divorce Suit All in. A Peculiar Letter from the Plaintiff Introduced in Evidence. Witnesses Testify to Storke's Kind Treatment of His Wife. "Tommy" Ncvor Called airs. Storkc's Aunt "An Old Hon with Whiskers" Fifteen Ditya Allowed in Which to rile Uriels. Brach office. No. 713 State street, where news, advertisements and orders for The Times are rcceived.1 The trial of the Storke divorce case was resumed in the Superior Court yesterday morning. A deposition of Mrs. Fefia, a lady of refinement and good family, living in Oakland, had been taken by the plaintiff about the middle of December, which reached Santa. Barbara on or about December 17. The contents of the deposition disproved one of the serlqus charges of the plaintiff against the defendant; that Is, the Lick House scene, whereupon Mrs. Storke wrote the following letter, which 'Mr. Storke characterizes as false and.maliciously untrue In every particular. The letter is written from'' Los Angeles and Is dated December 24. It reads as follows : "When in San Francisco In the spring of 1890 I learned that some time previous to mr. rena s emoarKing in tne ill-rated Se-nora, he had deserted you' and that vou had followed" him and prevailed on him to return, and this confirmed my belief that he was not dead; that he had "only pretended to go in the Senora in order "tp gain the time to get away during the days of her absence, and that he had taken advantage of the loss of the ship to escape from you un-der the cover of apparent loss at sea. My love for you led me to Investigate the matter, which I did with inflnatc patience and at no little expense. Mr. Storke knew of my doing so, and when we met you in San Francisco, urged me to tell you, which Ire-fused to do, fearing to arouse false hopes which might not be sustained. Now see how carefully Providence adjusts details for us. Only a day or two. after I had written you, telling how unwilling I was to bring you into anv trouble, yet how imperative it was that f should do so, I received the final returns from the last money I had been able to expend for you. This told me thac Francis Pefia is alive, well and prosperous, living with a handsome woman and beautiful child, a boy. I have been aided in the research by remembering the whereabouts of people who knew him when he was studying at Vallejo or Bene-cia, I forget which. Thus God punishes you for your treachery toward me. After all that you have said concerning Mr. Storke's monstrous behavior to me at the Lick House, you -swear that his conduct was rational, reasonable and not un. usual, yet you. profess to be . a Christian woman! I will not inquire whether in this you were actuated by motives of spite against me, 'for dragging you into it.' or by more sordid conride rations offered you by Mr. Storke. . I believe I could have vou convicted ot perjury, but you were o'nee my friend I will leave you to lie down and rise and eat and live and die for vou must remember that you have to die with the memory of your false witness ever resting upon you. If Ishould die, you weuld be in part my murderer. I shall not die. I shall live and keep the secret of Francis Pefia's whereabouts." ... At yesterday morning's session C. C. Hunt, of the firm of Hunt, Hosmer & Co.. grocers, was examined,, and tentified that Mrs. Storke had had the privilege of unlimited credit at his store, and that they kept nothing but tlrst-class goods. C.C.Newman, a partner of Mr. Loner-gan, the druggist, corroborated the testimony of the others in regard to Mrs, Storkc's attempt at suicide by taking mor-phlue. Dr. Casal testified to the' same scene, but said he saw none of the effects of morphine, but that morphine might have been taken. Dr. Knox, in reply to along hypothetical question, stated that presuming the evidence to be true as presented by the defense, the plaintiff, Yda Addis Storke, was suffering from a form of insanity known as hysterical insanity. The cross-examination of Tommv Storke was comparatively short. In general, it was to the effect that he had never been refractory or Insolent to Mrs. Storke, had never thrown rocks at the house or called Mrs. Store's aunt "an old hen with whiskers." He had never disregarded her will except on one occasion, when he had been waiting for her, and she came out and said he was a dirty little imp, and to go on down town, and he went away, and did not come back for her. He had never hit her arms when out driving with her, but had told her how to hold the reins. Dr. Winchester was introduced in the afternoon. His testimony was confined mostly to insanity. He explained that hys-teri a, hysterical mania and hysterical insanity were progressive terms suggesting the same disease, which often becomes Chronic. Rev. P. S. Thatcher testified that he went to see Mr. Storke as a peace commissioner between Storke and wife. Storke spoke kindly of his wife and said she could come home whenever she wished. She persisted that Tommy be sent away. Witness boarded at the same place with her before she married, and neersaw anything in. dlcating insanity. Mrs. Storke took the stand in rebuttal, and said that she went to see Mr. Boyce, the attorney for A. J. Lawrence, because Storke sent her to him to see. what he knew of the defense. Mr. Stephens had ignored Storke all through the Lawrence case, and had paid more attention to Mr. Taggart, also associate counsel. The witness was shown a letter written by her to B. F.Thomas Imploring the aid of the Masonic order, and stating that Mr. Storke would not supply her with the necessities of life. J. W. Taggart testified that there had' been no friction between the attorneys for the defense in the trial of the Lawrence case, and that everything had been perfectly harmonious. The defendant testified that he did not send his wife to Boyce; that her actions had caused him mental suffering and 111 health. . Miss Edna Lcland and Miss Gertrude Lc-land testified for the prosequtlon that they had made a trip to San Francisco in June, 1801, with Mrs. Storke. They -had not known her before, and called on her once or twice. They never observed anything irrational or insane. Depositions were placed in evidence from Judge O'Melveny, Thomas E. Rowan and others of Los Angeles stating that while she was positive, willed, excitable and emotional, they had never noticed anything approaching Insanity. The testimony here closed, aud fifteen; days were given to file briefs, the case then to be deemed submitted. The prosecution inoved for $250 alimony to defray expenses. The motion was compromised, the defendant paying all expenses up to date. In the complaint the plaintiff asks for separate maintenance, giving as the grounds cruelty. In a cross complaint the defendant prays for a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and insanity.

Clipped from The Los Angeles Times, 10 Jan 1892, Sun,  Page 7

Auric Member Photo
  • Testimony in the Storke Divorce Suit All in

    Auric – 17 Jul 2017

Want to comment on this Clipping? Sign up for a free account, or sign in