Wilkerson v. Wilkerson

HALL, J.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree of divorce awarded plaintiff, as well as an appeal from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

[205]

The only points presented by the appeal relate to the action of the court in overruling defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s amended complaint, and to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that plaintiff had been a resident of this state for one year next prior to the commencement of this action. In the amended complaint plaintiff, upon her information and belief, charges the defendant with having committed adultery with one Jane Doe at divers times between the sixteenth and twenty-fourth days of December, 1902, at the city of Seattle in the state of Washington. It is alleged that the true name of the said Jane Doe is unknown to plaintiff. It is next charged that defendant committed adultery with the same person on the twenty-ninth day of December, 1902, at the town of Ellensburg in the state of Washington. Also it is charged that he committed adultery with the same person at the city of Spokane, state of Washington, at divers times between the twenty-ninth day of December, 1902, and the fourth day of January, 1903; and that at divers times between the twelfth day of January, 1903, and the twenty-eighth day of February, 1903, he committed adultery with the same person at the city and county of San Francisco. There is also a charge made, upon information and belief, that defendant committed adultery with one Jane Roe (whose true name is alleged to be unknown to plaintiff) at the city and county of San Francisco between the seventeenth day of March, 1903, and the seventh day of April, 1903. These separate charges of adultery are set forth in separate paragraphs numbered from 3 to 7. Defendant demurred for uncertainty as to the allegations of adultery in these several paragraphs, in this, that neither the name of the person with whom, nor the particular place, house, or locality where, the adultery was committed are given, and that the several charges are not stated with reasonable certainty as to time, place and persons, so as to enable the defendant to prepare to meet the same at the trial. The demurrer was overruled, defendant answered, denying the several charges, and the court separately found the defendant guilty of each of the charges of adultery with Jane Doe, and ascertained at the trial and stated in the findings her true name (but which we omit). The court found the defendant not guilty of the charge of adultery with Jane Roe, so defendant could not have been prejudiced by the ruling of