The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-08-15
IS. WEBSTER WON.
Gets the Divorce on Grounds
Of Cruelty.
PROPERTY IS DIVIDED.
uuuxsI Duval, the Lawyer. Charged Win
1.nnIty -suits Against Kensher .
Co.-The Biofter.


11n{1& assoIce or 'ne pI.yst ~ sne efoss'
lniat " iasor - Sssan =, y, "eps'sr, tne oe-
IGNx AGAINST LAW w a "sose lac PROD
~ ysIued 2. $500. e ul. .n equaliy g.
divorce csss that hss evsv 100
s - s. ~ euuer,or court
~ u HubbelI wa. the first wftnesn ea,lod
Is : 1890 fl1.t he roomed with David n
ss.srr fiurfue his wife's absence in California
& - 1922. he said. confessed 70 him his crfm-
! - snrln,a,.v with MARY Clark,
3 ~ = a noble VS. called and asked n he
81 1,sefod the plaintiff for ! losfhsome AZ
-. The ouessio 4 was not permftted. the
.-. ! eadsur that he could not tesrify. = nufler
~ ~ : pfys claus professional knovledoe
"a ~ g fiert = 4 privileged Communication.
issse ", hester. Mrs BENSON and Judge Han
~. 40 called in behalf OF the defendant. b,,t
srsSne 81 IN portance was elected from them.
- 1sfenae Of the plaintiff against he aller.-
sss II the troes-compiaist was theu com
~ The plsintiff ives called. Ard his ~.
is1,ss,v ~ I general denial OF most Of the Il.
s fs-1sS.ns az the answer. and explauetfons Of
& ~ nfhers- He testified that he did n one
7&e When sorely yex d, push his wife away.
~Ssr she ok hold of him, but aside from
- hsd never laid violent hands upon her. He
4 ked nrrer violated his marriage vow. He dir
1870 4 Mary Clark from his employ himself
~tss IL discorered his wife,s iealousv. Hfs
/ cserrel sehrd him to tell about the cause Of the
1910 wixn his slater. Mrs. Tnorndyke. leading
- = 80 p.iaful ep,so e Of their troubie 81 the
~ d their mothers corpse. brought ont the
Neninf before IN the examination Of Mrs.
3hofndyke. The matter had no bearing what
Nuon the case IN fria.s out ms counsel urged
- Submission 70 yindicate he name OF Ar.
Webster IRON the I'M urafion in NrA Thorn
~Esym Test INV he -
n ques Ion vas objected TO- ana while the
poibi ue b<ing srl ued ~ the counsel. Mr..
Eresnf broke c"mp.eteiy down and cried pifes
ce-y. 1he siiuation was most painful one.
Jnoce LchtenGers meIciiuliy Sustained the OBJ
= je<flon.
d. Hall tetfined that ne was treating Mr..
Webster, who, he ssid, was In broken health.
M linz from general nervous debility. He
nd hat be had no eliminating disease
Jpdp Lchtsnosrg said. in giving his de-
11otN MaS the case was 9 e that had better
ne<ef Anve been brs ught by the parties, out OF
|1epecfIo themselves and the circles IN which
~ moveo. n ma ng the facts. ne SAID that
= ID cruelty, II was question as to which was
~ csuelest The question Of be plaintiffs in
etshfy be did not pass upon, -. II the adultery
- submitted II wss done over . year prior to
paH NOT be cause of action.
esTauied the divorce to Mrs. Webster on the
md OF cruelty. TIE property, the court
oxd. had been acquired by their int effurts
81 wss divided eqnsly The s200o in the
6nk Was given TO Mrs Webster All rents that
E&W accumulated since the appointment Of Z
|ucliyer we're divided equa ".
h1ronnxY DuvAL CHARGED WIN INSANITY.
- issued y srsanf ier the arrest OF VtrRil b
~ cause why he should not be disbarred.
- ctarxe Of inssni'y. The inf rmasion