Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1867-09-07
ELIzApENH d. WILSON,,
VS.. Divorce SNit.
FREDERtCK A. WILSON.
Reply to the answer.

Reply to the dnsmer.
!, the plaintiff, Elizabeth d. Wilson, deny
each and all of the avcrmcnts of the defen-
dant's answer, save only such as shall here
after admit. l deny the averment that until
we became acquainted with Mr.. Z. b. Darwin
VIC " lived happily together" 1t is true, as
alleged, that often spoke of Mr.. Wilson as
{" good, kind and dutiful husband" but it was
always done in the way Of that indefinite,
w.fcly compliment, which have not even yet
abandoned, except as compelled to do SO by
the vindication OF my own rights. The truth
is, that although he was most of the time re-
spcctful and naturally kind, yet nc was always
devoid Of that delicatete' derness which is the
essential idea of The marriage relation.
His statements regarding the money taken
from me" are neither full nor exact. ! had
no. represented that wanted "to visit San
Francisco" and money had not been given
me for that purpose, to my knowledge. Four
hundred dollars was held by me rs wives Of
ten keep their husbands MONEY and was prop
erly taken by him. But had also OF my own
one hundred-dollar bond, IN unconditional
present of defendant, on the Christmas pre-
vious. This he demanded and took from me.
lie then asked if this was nllthc money had,
when gave him a half-cngle which had re-
ceivcd from the sale Of n pair of corsets which
had proved too large. This he was abou. to
allow me to retain, but when said, as he had
already taken from me all my means but that,
he might rs well turn me upon the world with
nothing as with hve dollars, he took that also;
and thus cast me penniless upon the society
into which he has since pursued me with his
newspaper advertisement, warning all men
against crediting me upon his account. There
| is, however, this element Of truth in the state
ment. That q visit to San Francisco had been
| contemplated. He had proposed my going
there, mainly with the object of procuring
dental services. But when had seriously en-
tered upon that deliberation which ul;imntcd
in the resolve to seek a divorce, my sense of
justice would not permit me to accept from
him any consideration Of much value, and so
| I declined tho proposed set Of teeth. With
the same feeling declined taking away from
his house any article which he had already
given me, and which could be restored, and so
/ left there . valuable silk dress pattern, q
| fine album, books, and other things of ac-
count.
This feeling on my part was no servilc i'm
itation Of the defendant. for he ne-erthe-
less demanded and took from me = diamond
ring worth about twenty dollars, also my we'd
ding ring, worth about three dollars. Prob
ably he took the latter to evidence that he
thus put IN end TO the marriage bond. to which
he nevertheless with desperate Inconsistency
yet eiings.
Their 10 ene other matter ~ ieh ] need 10
state. ! ea.sess tia; q nstsr.l wisk % Goa
tribute nofhisg 70 a~grsdr The esssst~rssssa
&c mr. skila-~n . father iHp<ls ~ % vsthheA
the rsmEznsraEs~a. bot y fkrsxs s~1<
l.xA. ur~s ks Fi-a.~s sr@P~~ s~~.r< -.
an tad ! ezrhr ss< ~ ss<s& 10 s~~h sa~r~.-
tss1. &3G ps~c~~~
l~..-< r-z p--.~~~-& a. s-<.E~sz k~z-~
a