CASANJOA-L Archives

Archiver > CASANJOA > 2006-10 > 1160655696


From: The Poupel/Morddel family <>
Subject: Re: [CASANJOA] CASANJOA Digest, Vol 1, Issue 33
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.559.1160636680.30382.casanjoa@rootsweb.com>


Thank you, Phyllis. The Atlanta Hitchcocks are, indeed, my people, but the rural ones seem not to be. Very kind of you.

wrote:

Today's Topics:

1. Re: ~CADI~ Junker ()
2. San Andreas, Calaveras Co., CA -- 21 Jan 1860 (Dee Sardoc)
3. Hitchcock Family ()


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: 11 Oct 2006 07:38:26 -0600
From:
Subject: Re: [CASANJOA] ~CADI~ Junker
To:
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.

Classification: Query

Message Board URL:

http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/AY.2ADE/2238.1.1

Message Board Post:

Thank You kindly for your help.
fh



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:22:09 -0700
From: Dee Sardoc
Subject: [CASANJOA] San Andreas, Calaveras Co., CA -- 21 Jan 1860
To: , ,
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed;
x-avg-checked=avg-ok-67874840

The San Andreas Independent
San Andreas, Calaveras County, CA
Saturday, 21 January 1860
*****************************

BIRTH -- at Angels, Jan. 16th, to the wife of Alfred SMITH of a son.

------------------------------------------------

CHICK vs. CHICK -- A judgment of Judge HARDY's upon a special verdict
rendered by the jury in the above case, will be found in another
column. A divorce from the bonds of matrimony is refused; a divorce
from bed and board granted.

DIVORCE CASE -- CHICK vs. CHICK
Mary Ann CHICK vs. Alred CHICK -- In the District Court of the 16th
Judicial District, county of Calaveras.

The bill filed in this case shows that complainant and defendant are
husband and wife; that they are the parents of a male child 3 years
of age; and that they are also residents of the county in which this
suit is brought. The bill charges extreme cruelty on the part of the
husband towards the wife, and prays for a decree of divorce from the
bonds of matrimony, and that the complainant be allowed the care and
custody of the child.

The answer denies the cruelty, and charges that complainant has not
kept and observed her marriage relations.

The issue thus raised was found in favor of complainant and her
counsel now move, on the verdict of the jury, for a decree of divorce
a vincula matrimonii.

The verdict of the jury finding the defendant guilty of extreme
cruelty, though based upon evidence of doubtful credit, sufficiently
comports with the facts of the case as to be entitled to
consideration at the hands of the chancellor, and the case will be
decided on the hypothesis that the defendant has been guilty of
extreme cruelty towards complainant.

But that portion of the findings which declares that the complainant
has kept and observed her marriage vows, is so utterly at variance
with the facts, and is so utterly destructive of the delicate
relations which should exist between husband and wife, that I cannot
conscientiously give weight or consideration to it, although it is
the conscientious opinion of 12 jurors.

For several months before there was any pretence of ill-treatment on
the part of the husband towards the wife, she was in the continued
habit of visiting balls, parties and assemblages with one AVERIL; at
different times she went with him 15, 20 and even 30 miles to balls,
leaving her husband at home with the young child, after he had worked
all day. She received numerous valuable presents from AVERILL
[spelled 2 ways] which were illy suited to her condition in life. He
gave her money, and finally when he had caused a separation, gave her
money to prosecute this suit, and was the only witness who could
testify to an unkind word or act of the defendant towards the
complainant. Nor was this all; the frequency of the occurrences
mentioned, and the gross improprieties between AVERILL and the
complainant, caused serious neighborhood comment and censure, which
came to the husband's ears, and when he remonstrated with his wife,
she became indignant and twitted her husband with his poverty and
indebtedness; and when he remonstrated with AVERILL, he (AVERILL)
armed himself with a Colt's revovler, and threatened to chastise him
if he dared to talk so again, and the 2 contined their rides and
visits to balls and theatres.

Smarting under indignities like these, the defendant committed some
excesses; but surely is not the only one to blame. In this view of
the facts, the question recurs -- "To what relief, if any, is the
complainant entitled?"

Our Supreme Court, in a case of this kind, in a well digested and
able opinion, have said: "It was intended that a certain discretion
should be exercised by the Court, according to the especial
circumstances of each suit, acting upon the settled principle of the
common law as applicable to this class of cases; and the true rule
which should govern the court in the exercise of its discretion in
this respect, is this, that to entitle to a decree from absolute
divorce from the bonds of matrimony, the applicant must be an
innocent party -- one who has faithfully discharged the obligations
of the marriage relation, and seek relief because really aggrieved or
injured by the misconduct of the others; and on the other hand, where
there are circumstances showing a disregard of those obligations,
though not carried to such a degree as to constitute itself a ground
for divorce, the decree should only be a divorce from bed and board.
To obtain a relase, a vincula matrimonii, the applicant must be
without reproach; and however guilty the defendant, if the applicant
is charged with similar guilty, or an offence to which the law
attaches similar consequences, the relief must be denied; and if the
applicant, though not thus guilty, is still not blameless, the relief
must be limited to a divorce a mensa et thoro."

This decision, so eminently just and conservation in itself and so
consonent with the precedents and authority of other tribunals,
should be followed in all cases, and a refusal to obey the rule there
laid down, would be more justly attributed to caprice than discretion.

It follows from these views, that the complainant, if entitled to
relief at all, is only entitled to a decree of divorce a mensa et
thoro. And as to the prayer for the custody of the child, there is no
evidence tending to show the unfitness of the natural and lawful
guardian for the performance of his legal duties in the care and
maintenance of his child, or to show any peculiar fitness or
necessity for awarding the custody to the mother; but on the
contrary, the evidence shows habits on her part illy adopted to the
proper training of an infant child.

I feel no disposition to interfere with the legal rule on this
subject. Let a decree of divorce from 'bed and board' be entered, and
denying the prayer of the complainant for the care and custody of the child.
[signed] James H. HARDY, Mokelumne Hill, Jan. 17th, 1860

------------------------------------------------

DISSOLUTION NOTICE -- The partnership heretofore existing between A.
SLEEPER, Freeman DUNBAR, Timonty DOOLY and B.F. CLARK, under the firm
of A. SLEEPER & Co., is from this date dissolved by mutual consent,
A. SLEEPER withdrawing from the firm. The business of the firm will
be continued by F. DUNBAR, Timothy DOOLY and B.F. CLARK, at Murphys,
under the firm name of F. DUNBAR & Co.
A. SLEEPER
Freeman DUNBAR
T. DOOLY
B.F CLARK
Murphys, Jan. 19th, 1860

------------------------------------------------

PETIT LARCENY and SHOOTING -- On Monday night last, 16th instant, a
man was discovered filling a sack from the pile of drift-dirt
belonging to LATZ & Co., on Douglas Hill, less than half a mile from
this place. The person who saw him, fired a shot-gun loaded with No.
5 shot, and peppered the culprit pretty severely on the right side,
head and face. He immediately dropped his sack, crying that he was
shot to pieces, and ran for the cabin, when it was discovered to be
one Richard JACKA, who had been at work for the company several
months, tending whim day and night alternate weeks. This week he had
night watch.

Drs. FORT and BROWN were immediately called in to see the wounded
man; who, perhaps being badly frightened, confessed that he had
entered into a plan with 2 other men -- who had come here recently,
and with whom he had made acquaintance -- to carry off a small amount
of dirt every night. JACKA, having a good opportunity, was to fill up
the dirt in sacks, carry it down the hill about 100 yards and deposit
it, when the other 2 would remove and wash it out the next day.

B.J. LATZ swore out a warrant before Judge BARCLAY and had Wm. DAVIS
and Thomas WILLIAMSON arrested for petit larceny. The case was tried
on Tuesday last. Richard JACKA, the wounded man, having turned
State's evidence, was the principal witness.

According to his evidence, DAVIS and WILLIAMSON came to him Saturday
after New Year's and wished to get work, stating that they were out
of money. JACKA tried to get work for them in LATZ's company, stating
that one of the men (DAVIS) was his cousin, which it appears is not
the case, he being merely a countryman. They failed in getting
employment, and a few days afterward some one showed them a claim in
the gulch some 3 or 400 yards from LATZ & Co.'s claim. They told
JACKA, who went with them to the lumber yard and became responsible
for the sluice lumber, DAVIS and WILLIAMSON proposing to work on
their claim. After this the arrangement was made between the 3 to
steal the dirt.

On Saturday night last JACKA filled 2 sacks of dirt and carried them
down to a certain place, and the same night took one of the men and
showed him where it was. He alleged that DAVIS and WILLIAMSON carried
it down to their claim, and on Sunday showed him where they had
buried it. Monday they went to work on their claim, worked half a
day, and JACKA helped them wash down -- they had somewhere about half
an ounce.

The arrangement then was, that JACKA should, on Monday night, fill 4
sacks and carry them to the same place, and when he came home for
supper at 12 o'clock, to wake them up (JACKA having installed them in
his own house), when they would remove the dirt to their claim and
wash out the next day. JACKA had filled up 2 sacks and carried them
off, and was filling up the 3rd when he was shot, which frustrated
and completely broke up the whole arrangement. The 2 sacks taken on
Monday night were panned out on Tuesday morning, and found to contain
40 odd dollars. Had they not been checked as they were, they would
evidently have done a thriving business.

Circumstances render suspicions very strong that JACKA had been
pilfering from the company for a long time. The defendants, DAVIS and
WILLIAMSON, plead not guilty to the last, but the jury were of a
different opinion. They were each sent up for 20 days.

------------------------------------------------

CHESS CLUB -- At a meeting of the San Andreas Chess Club, held on
Monday evening, 16th instant, President S.H. MARLETTE in the Chair, a
Secretary and the following committees were chosen:
J.W. WILLARD, Secretary
J.W. WILLARD and P.W. CORNWELL, a committee to draft constitution and by-laws
J.W. WILLARD a committee to procure a room for meetings

FOR SALE -- A light wagon, express style, with covered shifting
seats; also, a Single and Double Harness -- all new and of superior
make. They will be sold low for want of use. May be seen at Fourth Crossing.
A. MONTFORT

NOTICE! Notice is hereby given that I will apply to the Board of
Supervisors at their session in February, 1860, for a license to keep
a Toll Bridge across the Calaveras river at the Bay State Ranch.
F.P. MEDINA, Jan. 18th, 1860


Transcribed by Dee Sardoch
To see more old newspapers, visit http://www.newspaperabstracts.com/index.php


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/7/2006




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:46:01 +0000
From:
Subject: [CASANJOA] Hitchcock Family
To:
Message-ID:
<>

Content-Type: text/plain

Dear A;

Atlanta Methodist Cemetery. Located at Five Corners and Jack Tone Road, about 20 miles east of Stockton on the road leading to the southern mines.

HITCHCOCK PLOT

J.R.W. Hitchcock born Oct. 21, 1825, died Jan. 14, 1901
Josephine Hitchcock born Sept. 7, 1840, died May 23, 1909
Mary Eliza, wife of J.R.W. Hitchocock, died Aug 13, 1869, aged 30 yrs, 11 days
Louis F. Hitchcock, son of J.R.W. & M.E. Hitchcock, born Apr 21, 1861, died Sept 13, 1877
Alfred L. Hitchocock born Feb 6, 1886, died Nov 15, 1889
(Old Cemeteries of San Joaquin County California Vol. I, pg 6)

Rural Cemetery (Vol. II, pg. 92)

Hitchcock, C.K.,, buried Jan 11, 1867, age 12
Hitchcock, Charle Neslson (G.A.R.) burried Mar, 21, 1919, age 80
Hitchcock, Elizabeth, buried Jul 17, 1912, age 88
Hitchcock, Margaret, buried Feb 17, 1870, age 46
Hitchcock, Russell, buried Nov 17, 1876, age 45
Hitchcock, Sarah, buried Nov 18, 1916, age 74
Hitchcock, Silas, buried Jan 12, 1873, age 21
Hitchcock, Thomas Ashley, buried Feb 3, 1919, age 64

Note: some of the older graves were moved from other cemeteries to the Rural Cemetery.
Hope some of the are yours. Phyllis

------------------------------

To contact the CASANJOA list administrator, send an email to
.

To post a message to the CASANJOA mailing list, send an email to .

__________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the
email with no additional text.


End of CASANJOA Digest, Vol 1, Issue 33
***************************************



---------------------------------
All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

This thread: