Chapter III

PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.

While these proceedings were being had in the state courts the case of Sharon vs. Hill in the federal court was making slow progress. Miss Hill's attorneys seemed to think that her salvation depended upon reaching a decision in her case before the determination of Sharon's suit in the United States Circuit Court. They were yet to learn, as they afterwards did, that after a United States court takes jurisdiction in a case, it cannot be ousted of that jurisdiction by the decision of a state court, in a proceeding subsequently commenced in the latter. Seldom has "the law's delay" been exemplified more thoroughly than it was by the obstacles which her attorneys were able to interpose at every step of the proceedings in the federal court.

Sharon commenced his suit in the United States Circuit Court October 3, 1883, twenty-eight days before his enemy commenced hers in the State Superior Court. By dilatory pleas her counsel succeeded in delaying her answer to Sharon's suit until after the decision in her favor in the state court. She did not enter an appearance in the federal court until the very last day allowed by the rule. A month later she filed a demurrer. Her counsel contrived to delay the argument of this demurrer for seven weeks after it was filed. It was finally argued and submitted on the 21st of January, 1884. On the 3d of March it was overruled and the defendant was ordered to answer in ten days, to wit, March 13th. Then the time for answering was extended to April 24th. When that day arrived her counsel, instead of filing an answer, filed a plea in abatement, denying the non-residence of Mr. Sharon in the State of California, on which depended his right to sue in the federal court. To this Mr. Sharon's counsel filed a replication on the 5th of May. It then devolved upon Miss Hill's counsel to produce evidence of the fact alleged in the plea, but, after a delay of five months and ten days, no evidence whatever was offered, and the court ordered the plea to be argued on the following day. It was overruled, and thirty days were given to file an answer to Sharon's suit. The case in the state court had then been tried, argued, and submitted thirty days before, but Miss Hill's counsel were not yet ready to file their answer within the thirty days given them, and the court extended the time for answer until December 30th. Six days before that day arrived Judge Sullivan rendered his decision. At last, on the 30th of December, 1884, fourteen months after the filing of Sharon's complaint, Sarah Althea's answer was filed in the federal court, in which, among other things, she set up the proceedings and decree of the state court, adjudging the alleged marriage contract to be genuine and legal, and the parties to be husband and wife, and three days later Sharon filed his replication. There was at no time any delay or want of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting this suit to final judgment. On the contrary, as is plainly shown in the record above stated, the delays were all on the part of the defendant. The taking of the testimony in the United States Circuit Court commenced on the 12th of February, 1885, and closed on the 12th of August following.

The struggle in the state court was going on during all the time of the taking of the testimony in the federal court, and intensified the excitement attendant thereon. Miss Hill was in constant attendance before the examiner who took the testimony, often interrupting the proceedings with her turbulent and violent conduct and language, and threatening the lives of Mr. Sharon's counsel. She constantly carried a pistol, and on occasions exhibited it during the examination of witnesses, and, pointing it at first one and then another, expressed her intention of killing them at some stage of the proceedings. She was constantly in contempt of the court, and a terror to those around her. Her conduct on one occasion, in August, 1885, became so violent that the taking of the testimony could not proceed, and Justice Field, the presiding judge of the circuit, made an order that she should be disarmed, and that a bailiff of the court should sit constantly at her side to restrain her from any murderous outbreak, such as she was constantly threatening. Her principal attorney, Tyler, was also most violent and disorderly. Judge Terry, while less explosive, was always ready to excuse and defend his client. (See Report of Proceedings in Sharon vs. Hill, 11 Sawyer's Circuit Court Reps., 122.)

Upon the request of counsel for the complainant, the examiner in one case reported to the court the language and the conduct of Miss Hill. Among other things, he reported her as saying:

"When I see this testimony [from which certain scandalous
remarks of hers were omitted] I feel like taking that man
Stewart[1] out and cowhiding him. I will shoot him yet; that
very man sitting there. To think that he would put up a woman
to come here and deliberately lie about me like that. I will
shoot him. They know when I say I will do it that I will do
it. I shall shoot him as sure as you live; that man that is
sitting right there. And I shall have that woman Mrs. Smith
arrested for this, and make her prove it."

And again:

"I can hit a four-bit piece nine times out of ten."

The examiner said that pending the examination of one of the witnesses, on the occasion mentioned, the respondent drew a pistol from her satchel, and held it in her right hand; the hand resting for a moment upon the table, with the weapon pointed in the direction of Judge Evans. He also stated that on previous occasions she had brought to the examiner's room during examinations a pistol, and had sat for some length of time holding it in her hand, to the knowledge of all persons present at the time. After the reading of the examiner's report in open court, Justice Field said:

"In the case of William Sharon versus Sarah Althea Hill, the
Examiner in Chancery appointed by the court to take the
testimony has reported to the court that very disorderly
proceedings took place before him on the 3d instant; that at
that day, in his room, when counsel of the parties and the
defendant were present, and during the examination of a
witness by the name of Piper, the defendant became very much
excited, and threatened to take the life of one of the
counsel, and that subsequently she drew a pistol and declared
her intention to carry her threat into effect. It appears also
from the report of the examiner that on repeated occasions the
defendant has attended before him, during the examination of
witnesses, armed with a pistol. Such conduct is an offense
against the laws of the United States punishable by fine and
imprisonment. It interferes with the due order of proceedings
in the administration of justice, and is well calculated to
bring them into contempt. I, myself, have not heretofore sat
in this case and do not expect to participate in its decision;
I intend in a few days to leave for the East, but I have been
consulted by my associate, and have been requested to take
part in this side proceeding, for it is of the utmost
importance for the due administration of justice that such
misbehavior as the examiner reports should be stopped, and
measures be taken which will prevent its recurrence. My
associate will comment on the laws of Congress which make the
offense a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment.

"The marshal of the court will be directed to disarm the
defendant whenever she goes before the examiner or into court
in any future proceeding, and to appoint an officer to keep
strict surveillance over her, in order that she may not carry
out her threatened purpose. This order will be entered. The
Justice then said that it is to be observed that this block,
embracing this building--the court-house--is under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Every offense
committed within it is an offense against the United States,
and the State has no jurisdiction whatever. This fact seems to
have been forgotten by the parties."

The following is the order then entered as directed by Justice Field:

"Whereas it appears from the report to this court of the
Examiner in Chancery in this case appointed to take the
depositions of witnesses, that on the 3d day of August,
instant, at his office, counsel of the parties appeared,
namely, William M. Stewart, Esquire, and Oliver P. Evans,
Esquire, for the complainant, and W.B. Tyler, Esquire, for the
defendant, and the defendant in person, and that during the
examination before said examiner of a witness named Piper, the
defendant became excited and threatened the life of the
counsel of the complainant present, and exhibited a pistol
with a declared intention to carry such threat into effect,
thereby obstructing the order of the proceedings, and
endeavoring to bring the same into contempt; and

"Whereas it further appears that said defendant habitually
attends before said examiner carrying a pistol,

"_It is ordered_, That the marshal of this court take such
measures as may be necessary to disarm the said defendant, and
keep her disarmed, and under strict surveillance, while she is
attending the examination of witnesses before said examiner,
and whenever attending in court, and that a deputy be detailed
for that purpose."

[1] Senator Stewart, who was one of the counsel against her in the
suit.