The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-06-05
Law OF ALrMoNY.
Important Dccision In the Prouty d.
vorce Case.

Important Decision In the frouty III
vorce Case.
The suit of Matte T. B. Prouty against
II. II. Prouty, John A. Prouty, John f.
Lord and Mrs. John f. Lord, which was
decided yesterday in Judge Lichtenberg's
department Of the superior court, involved
very important point in the law of di-
vorce and alimony. By the decision q
married woman, who is barred from bring
ing suit for divorce if she has not been a
resident of the state for year, is yet en-
titled to separate maintenance until such
time as suit for divorce can be brought.
The facts brought out in the trial of the
case show that in October, 1888, Mrs.
Prouty was married to the defendant,
Harley II. Prouty, in Montreal, Canada.
They went to live in Newport, Vermont,
where the husband was associated with his
father, John A. Prouty, in the lumber
business. In 1889 he sold his interest in
the business to his father and brother for
SO, 900 and came to Seattle, where he in
vested part of his funds in real estate
Previous to this time ne had treated his
wife so cruelty that she had been CON-
PEELED to seek the protection of her father
in-law. Upon promises of better conduct
she joined her husband in Seattle in
July, 1890. 1t was not long, how
ever, before he began to treat
her badly again, and in September her
sister, who was visiting her, had Prouty
arrested fer assault and battery on his
wife. He pleaded guilty to the charge be-
fore Justice Rivers and was fined. He
was also placed under S., 600 bond to keep
the peace, and upon refusing to give it,
was sent to Jail. The forgiving wife
effected q reconciliation with him, and Sc
cured q reduction of his bail to $1,000,
which was furnished. He also persuaded
her to grant him power of attorney, and
Immediately upon her doing so he trans
ferred all his real property to his father.
Not long afterward Mrs. Prouty left her
husband and brought suit in the superior
court in November for temporary alimony.
In this case Judge Lichtenberg, following
the old English law, decided that she was
not entitled to separate maintenance, as
she had not been a resident of the state for
ayear. The father, John A. Prouty, who
was made party to the suit, came on to
Seattle and was present at the trial. I'M
mediately after the decision was rendered
he conveyed all the property decided him
by his son to John T. Lord, former part
ner of the sons in the real estate business.
The younger Prouty in order, as he de-
ciared himself, that his wife might not re-
cover alimony from him, left Seattle and
located in Portland, Oregon, taking with
him all of his personal property.
On December II, 1891, the date when the
year Of her residence expired, Mrs. Prouty
brought suit against the husband for
divorce and alimony, and against John A.
Prouty, John +. Lord and Mrs. John +
Lord, to have the conveyances to them
get aside as fraudulent. Her husband did
not appear to defend himself, although
the other parties appeared in court. On
last Saturday. in the case of Black VS..
Black. Judge Lichtenberg. following the
recent decisions in California. Colorado
and Iowa, concerning instances of
cruel treatment of the wife. reversed
his former decision and decided that
the wife, although not a resident
for year, is entitled to separate mainte.
nance. Following the same rule, he gave
similar decision in the Prouty case. The
conveyances of the real estate by her hus-
band We're set aside, and she was awarded
$4,000 alimony and $3.50 attorneys fees
while the costs were taxed against all Of
the defendants. Thompson, Edsen &
HUMPHREYS were Mrs. Prouty's attorneys
while Colonel ]. c. Haines and G. J. Kill
sen, Keleher & Emery appeared for John
A. Prouty, and Preston, Albertson & Dom
worth for Mr. and Mrs. Lord.