His rule in life, as once stated by himself, was to compel acquiescence in his will by threats of violence, and known readiness to carry his threats into effect.  This, he said, would in most cases insure the desired result.  He counted on men’s reluctance to engage in personal difficulties with him.  He believed in the persuasiveness of ruffianism.

Whether he thought his marriage would frighten Judges Sawyer and Deady, who had just rendered their decision in the United States Circuit Court, and cause them either to modify the terms of the decree not yet entered, or deter them from its enforcement, is a matter of uncertainty.  He was of the ultra State’s-rights school and had great faith in the power of the courts of a State when arrayed against those of the United States.  He had always denied the jurisdiction of the latter in the case of Sarah Althea, both as to the subject-matter and as to the parties.  He refused to see any difference between a suit for a divorce and a suit to cancel a forged paper, which, if allowed to pass as genuine, would entitle its holder to another’s property.  He persisted in denying that Sharon had been a citizen of Nevada during his lifetime, and ignored the determination of this question by the Circuit Court.

But if Judge Terry had counted on the fears of the United States judges of California he had reckoned too boldly, for on the 15th of January, 1886, eight days after his marriage, the decree of the Circuit Court was formally entered.  This decree adjudged the alleged marriage contract of August 25, 1880, false, counterfeited, fabricated, and fraudulent, and ordered that it be surrendered to be cancelled and annulled, and be kept in the custody of the clerk, subject to the further order of the court; and Sarah Althea Hill and her representatives were perpetually enjoined from alleging the genuineness or the validity of the instrument, or making use of it in any way to support her claims as wife of the complainant.

The execution of this decree would, of course, put an end to Sarah Althea’s claim, the hope of maintaining which was supposed to have been the motive of the marriage.  To defeat its execution then became the sole object of Terry’s life.  This he hoped to do by antagonizing it with a favorable decision of the Supreme Court of the State, on the appeals pending therein.  It has heretofore been stated that the case against Sharon in the Superior Court was removed from the calendar on the 14th day of November, 1885, because of the defendant’s death on the previous day.  The 11th of February following, upon proper application, the court ordered the substitution of Frederick W. Sharon as executor and sole defendant in the suit in the place of William Sharon, deceased.  The motion for a new trial was argued on the 28th of the following May, and held under advisement until the 4th of the following October, when it was denied.  From this order of denial an appeal was taken by the defendant.