The trial of the case in the state court continued from March 10th until May 28th, when the summer recess intervened.  It was resumed July 15th, and occupied the court until September 17th, on which day the argument of counsel was concluded and the case submitted.  No decision was rendered until more than three months afterwards, namely, December 24th.  Nearly two months were then allowed to pass before the decree was entered, February 19, 1885.  The case was tried before Judge Sullivan without a jury, by consent of the parties.  He decided for the plaintiff, holding the marriage contract to be genuine, and to constitute a valid marriage.  It was manifest that he made his decision solely upon the evidence given by Sarah Althea herself, whom he nevertheless branded in his opinion as a perjurer, suborner of perjury, and forger.  Lest this should seem an exaggeration his own words are here quoted.  She stated that she was introduced by Sharon to certain parties as his wife.  Of her statements to this effect the Judge said: 

    “Plaintiff’s testimony as to these occasions is directly
    contradicted, and in my judgment her testimony as to these
    matters is wilfully false.”

Concerning $7,500 paid her by Sharon, which she alleged she had placed in his hands in the early part of her acquaintance with him, the Judge said: 

    “This claim, in my judgment, is utterly unfounded.  No such
    advance was ever made.”

At another place in his opinion the Judge said: 

“Plaintiff claims that defendant wrote her notes at different times after her expulsion from the Grand Hotel.  If such notes were written, it seems strange that they have not been preserved and produced in evidence.  I do not believe she received any such notes.”

With respect to another document which purported to have been signed by Mr. Sharon, and which Sarah Althea produced under compulsion, then withdrew it, and failed to produce it afterwards, when called for, saying she had lost it, Judge Sullivan said: 

“Among the objections suggested to this paper as appearing on its face, was one made by counsel that the signature was evidently a forgery.  The matters recited in the paper are, in my judgment, at variance with the facts it purports to recite.  Considering the stubborn manner in which the production of this paper was at first resisted and the mysterious manner of its disappearance, I am inclined to regard it in the light of one of the fabrications for the purpose of bolstering up plaintiff’s case.  I can view the paper in no other light than as a fabrication.”

In another part of his opinion Judge Sullivan made a sort of a general charge of perjury against her in the following language: 

“I am of the opinion that to some extent plaintiff has availed herself of the aid of false testimony for the purpose of giving her case a better appearance in the eyes of the court, but sometimes parties have been known to resort to false testimony, where in their judgment it would assist them in prosecuting a lawful claim.  As I understand the facts of this case, that was done in this instance.”

In another place Judge Sullivan said: