lly resolute and
determined. Mr. Sharon, who was a man of remarkable will and energy,
would have expended his entire fortune in litigation before he would
have paid tribute to those who thus attempted to plunder him. Sarah
Althea Hill was respectably connected, but had drifted away from her
relations, and pursued, without restraint, her disreputable course.
She affected a reckless and daredevil character, carrying a pistol,
and exhibiting it on occasions in cow-boy fashion, to convey the
impression that those who antagonized her had a dangerous character
with whom to deal. She was ignorant, illiterate, and superstitious.
The forged document which she thought to make a passport to the
enjoyment of a share of Sharon's millions was a clumsy piece of work.
It was dated August 25, 1880, and contained a clause pledging secrecy
for two years thereafter. But she never made it public until September,
1883, although she had, nearly two years before that, been turned out
of her hotel by Sharon's orders. At this treatment she only whimpered
and wrote begging letters to him, not once claiming, even in these
private letters to him, to be his wife. She could then have published
the alleged contract without any violation of its terms, and claimed
any rights it conferred, and it is obvious to any sane man that she
would have done so had any such document then been in existence.

Although Sharon's case against Sarah Althea Hill was commenced in
the federal court before the commencement of Miss Hill's case against
Sharon in the state court, the latter case was first brought to trial,
on the 10th of March, 1884.

[1] NOTE.--A court of equity having jurisdiction to lay its hands
upon and control forged and fraudulent instruments, it matters
not with what pretensions and claims their validity may be
asserted by their possessor; whether they establish a marriage
relation with another, or render him an heir to an estate, or
confer a title to designated pieces of property, or create a
pecuniary obligation. It is enough that, unless set aside or
their use restrained, they may impose burdens upon the
complaining party, or create claims upon his property by which
its possession and enjoyment may be destroyed or impaired.
(Sharon vs. Terry, 13 Sawyer's Rep., 406.) The Civil Code of
California also declares that "a written instrument in respect
to which there is a reasonable apprehension that, if l