The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-05-17
DUBOIS TWO WIVES.
Number One Doesn't Want Dr.
vorce, but Property.
STRANGE CASE IN THE COURTS.
her Husband Left Her In Pennaylvania,
Came West, Married Another
Woman and Was Happy.

The case Of Lena Dubois against Cor
nsuus Dubois, the trial of which began
yesterday before Judge Lichtenherg, is
most remarkable one. Husband and wife
appear against each other in court, but it
IS not suit for divorce or even alimony.
Inc wife sues to have the court declare her
the Joint owner with the husband of GER
tain valuable property, the title to which
Is In himself and second wife. Dubois is
weil-to-do Green river farmer, and the
property at stake is probably worth SOS 00O.
Inc story is strange one. In 1876 Du-
oois married Lena Marshall in Ulster
county, N. Y, and took her with
him to Wilcox, Pa, where he was engaged
In business. Less than three months later
ne left her and came West, bringing up in
Seattle. In 1880 he married Katy Walker,
who believed him to be q single man.
Thew have ever since lived together and
been recognized az man and wife, and four
children have been born to them.
In 1880 Lena, the first wife, learned
definitely of the whereabouts of her hus-
band and his second marriage and brought
suit against him. In his answer he alleges
that she deserted him after living with
him but short time at Wilcox. She is
also charged with having conducted her.
self in an improper and unladylike man.
ner and with having committed adultery
with different persons. When he married
Katy Walker he believed that Lena had
secured divorce, as he had that report
from the East.
The second wife, who Is sued a. Katy
Walker, alleges in her separate answer
that when she married Dubois she believed
him to be single man. They have since
lived together as man and wife and have
four children--Mabel, aged 9: Florence,
aged Z; Myrtle, aged 4. and Maude, aged 1.
Since the bringing of the suit they have
remained in the same house, but have not
lived in the relation of husband and wife.
Calkins 81 Shackleford, of Tacoma, and
w. Lair Hill appeared in court for the
plaintiff and Mayor Ronald for the de-
fendant
The first and Only witness for the
plaintiff was Mrs. Lena Dubois herself.
She testified to her marriage with Dubois
in Ulster county, New York, and to going
with him to Pennsylvania. After being
there less than three months he decided to
60 West and to send her home to stay with
her parents until he became settled and
could bring her out. They had lived to-
gether happily during this time. She had
several letters from him and answered all
of them. Finally they ceased and she
heard no more of him and began to think
he was dead.
Mr.. Ronald's cross-examination was q
fierce one, but it failed to shake the
,woman's testimony. His close question
ing brought out nothing more than the
details of her life since she parted with
her husband. After living for time
with a married brother in Pennsylvania
she went to New York city and carried on
q d-essmaking business with two Of her
sisters. Here she passed as Miss Mar
shall. She never at any time when at
home spoke to his relatives or any other
person of securing divorce from him.
The first news she had of Dubois after
his letters stopped was when an attorney
named Jesse Hansey, living in Lacka-
wack. had sent for her and told her that
he had a brother in Seattle who had writ
ten him of the marriage of Dubois to an
other woman. He wanted her to begin
proceedings, not for divorce, but to get
support from him. She did not Just ex-
actly understand the nature of these pro-
ceedings.
Mr.. Ronald questioned the witness very
infinitely and sharply as to alleged inn
proper relations with certain men whom
he named, but her answers were always
straightforward and satisfactory. After
taking her testimony and introducing in
evidence her marriage certificate and the
letters from her husband, her attorneys
rested their case.
The defense was not taken up yesterday.
It was o'clock when Mr.. Ronald moved
for non-suit in behalf of his client, and
said that he would want at least an hour
and q half to argue the motion. The
hearing was therefore adjourned until
o'clock this morning.