The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-09-17
NOT FOR DRUNKARDS.
Important Decision on the
Guardianship Law.
SEYMOUR wETMoRE's CASE.
aft On . Real Estate Trsds-aduldoon
Gets Big Damages for Injuries
Tho Blotter.

Judge Lchtenberg, of the superior court.
vss called upon yesterday TO give An important
yuIire In a probate proceeding TO determine
rbsfher or not seymour Wetmore, charged BY
ii, own children with being a common drunk.
.rd should DO placed in charge OF q guardian.
me court held that there IL no law in this state
authorizing the appointment of a guardian for
such person. and granted Wetmore's petition
u discharge the guardian appointed last July to
look after himself and his affairs.
The case, a. brought out BY the pleadings and
the testimony In court, has some very remarka-
he features Seymour Wetmore In an old set
tier in this section, who took mp a government
claim OF leo acres OF land, which lies along the
yrescnt line OF the Rainier avenue electric rail-
wsy. With the growth of Seattle Wetmore, by
the increase OF the values OF property, found
himself quite wealthy msn. One piece OF his
p.opeYty, containing seventy acres, sold at $500
an acre After the death of his wife her share
q. the property was divided among the seven
children each of whom received $500 The
amount that the father has kept for himself Ia
nov valued at about $4,000.
Last July petition was filed In tho superior
court OF this county, asking for the appoint.
reut Of q guardian for Seymour watmore, on
the ground that he was an habitual drunkard
and incapable OF taking care of himself This
was signed by six Of his children. the only ono
not joining being the wife Of Byron Young,
weii.Snown citizen OF Tacoma. The eldest son.
Birdscy Wetmore, swore to the petition, which
ret out that the father was addicted to danger.
Gus excess in the use of intoxicating liquors,
sui was In the habit of going about in tho COM
pauy Of lewd women and sQuandering his
money. On July IA hearing was had before
Judge Humes Tho senior Wetmore, according
to his story, was persuaded to stay away by his
pcn.in.law. Ford Wilson. He was adjudgsd a
common drunkard and incapable OF conducting
his own aflairs, and w. II. Reeves was ap-
pointed rs his guardian.
The preceding yesterday was brought by
Seymour wesmore. through bis attornsys,
Marshall X. Smell, of Tacoma, and Fred II.
Peterson, Of this city, to have his guardian
dismissed. Most Of the testimony taken was
from the Old man himself He showed evidence
Of very vigorous mind, and expressed himself
with great freedom. He stated that he had not
known the real meaning OF the former proceed
tag2 He bad been handed copy OF the petit
tiou, bnt had not read it because his eyesie ht
wss bad. and had not heard IL read until anite
recently, when his attorney read il 10 him.
Ford wilson had told him to stay away from
che hearing, and that il would fx his business
a.aIrs Gil right, hut he soon found out different
lie styled IL - trick too mean for asiwash, or
even Swash cur"
When questioned about his wasting his money
the old man admitted that he had been very free
with it He had loaned and given IL away to
different persons, but the one who had been
benefited Hcst in this way was his son law,
Ford Wilson. He also admitted that he drank
He had always been drinking man and always
would BE- But he Indignantly denied the
charges that he associated with lewd women.
BIZ bis answers he insimated that the former
proceedings were due to . desire on the part OF
the children TO tie up his property 90 they would
be eare OF IL in case Of his death.
The examination Of old MI. Wetmore was not
finished when court adjourned 1t O'Clock and
was taken up again In the evening. After IL
ended, Or. C. A Walsh was called upon to give
expert testimony upon question of insanity.
Judge Lichtenberg decided, however, that there
Was no need OF such testimony, ~ it was merely
question Of whether the man was . common
dfunkasd or not
This point being settled, the court ruled that
Ill thst remained for him to decide was whether
there Was any Law in this state authorizing the
appointment OF . guardian for habitual
dYunkard. After carefully examining the code
he decided that 1t did not give such authority.
The only section touching upon the question
has q title which declares IL TO b concerning
tie appointment of guardians for "idiots, In
sane, ETC." The section itself gives the superior
courts power to appoint guardians for "all
idiots. insane persons and ali who are incapable
OF conducting their own affairs" The judge an
nouuced that although in his opinion IL might
DO well for Mr.. Wetmoro to have .
gaard!an, still, as he construed the law, IL
did not intend to include habitual drunkards
among persons ''incapable OF conducting their
own affairs" and all that Mr.. Wetmore was
charged with being was . habitual drunkard.
He therefore granted the petition to dismiss the
guardian.
"insor & Farwell, who appeared for the chill
orsn. at once gave notice of appeal. and the
case viii b. take 10 the supreme court