The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-12-19
RVS OF THE COURTS.
rnour Wetmore Says He Does
Not Need aEuardian.
s. SPENDS MONEY ON WOMEN.
- n Chiidrsa wasn't Him Hestraine6
c-,tess over Aiki Poins Lands
New suits-Dlettss.


ais children over the question Of the
1<nsr's ability 10 manage his own affairs
,-,ssous guardian, was mp before Judge
f1srley yesterday on the originsi petition
- eusrdian fled in July, 1902 The
,rscrds therein alleged for the appoint
80 are that the old man 10 squandering
g noney on wine and women, and il
S,erscs TO the petitioners. In reply the
"a man has lied an sffidavit In which he
- shss be 10 able to look after himself,
"a thst the petitioners are sctuated only
4 Seslousies growing out OF the division
4 6.s property made among them several
ysss ago.
Wetmore was not Ia court himself, but
ssposed the petition only by attorney.
re tyisi Of the case will b continued to-
1sv. few only Of the petitioner wit
sssses having testified yesterday.
There are many complications in the
e,se the story Of which Is told by Fred Il.
Peterson. Wetmore's attorney. - follows:
.Wesmore. who 10 reputed TO be quite
wealthy, is an old resident OF the county.
md has lived near Seattle since 1850 In
ms be took up 100 acres OF land down in
he valley south OF town. about three
quarters of mile north OF what il now
know as Columbia, on the Rainier avenue
csr line When that car line was built
bis land became very valuable, and he WAS
rich man. As subsidy for the car line
BE- donated ten acres Of the farm, seventy
eerss more he sold to J. X. Edmiston tor
SB.o00. Then he decided forty scTes more
70 his son-in-law. Byron Young. Of Ta-
coma, and gave him $1,000 In cash. A
portion Of the remainder Of the land he
divided among the other children.
"ln July. 1s3z, some Of his children were
In their own opinion not treated Is well a.
they expected in the division and had w.
II. Reeves appointed guardian OF the old
man by Judge Hnmes. They accused him of
habitaal drunkenness and consorting with
ie~d women. The order to show cause
Why guardian should not be appointed
vas served upon the Old man when ne
uas drinking in saloon on Commercial
street. and probably drunk, for he did i'm
bibs rsore than was good for him. The
Old man afterwards said on the witness
stand that he was led TO believe the order
Of no consequence when IL was read to
him snd he accepted service, and that he
nsvsf read II afterward on account OF poor
syesight. Anyway he was not in court
and made no opposition 70 Mr.. Reeves
appointment.
He began to realize in the September
that he had not a. much say ~
10 liked in the management of his alta r.
end peiitioned for his guardians removal.
Judge Lichtenberg heard the old mans tes-
timony. which was most amusing, and
ttuA hat H.
needed. since Wetmore Was clearly NOT In
ssne, granted tho petition. Wetmore's
pat answers and his childiiks admissions
Of the way he blew in money on his
girls and paid for the gorgeous funeral
II one of them because he had the right 10
pend bis own money a. he pleased, are
wsii remembered fror. the publicity the
rial was given in the newspapers.
Mr.. Reeves appealed to the supreme
court and the decisions OF both Judge
Humes and Judge Lichtenberg were re-
1srsed. The holding was that Judge
Humes had no right to appoint a guardian
When Wetmore Was not in court and that
Judge Lichtenberg Was wrong in thinking
hat the old man had to be insane before
he needed a guardian.
To-day the case came up for hearing on
The original petition. The attorney tor
the petitioners set mp the claim that il was
necessary for US to prove that q guardian
vas not needed and get Mr.. Reeves dis
charged. We asked to have them prove
that a guardian was needed. Judge Lang
ley sustained Us, saying that in his opin-
lon the supreme court had held in effect
that no guardian was ever appointed. He
decided, however. to hear the petitioners
testimony, which so far has been to cor
roborate partially the petition. We intend
TO show, however, that Wetmore was per-
isetiy able TO care for himself when the
petition was drawn. Because q man was
. drunkard two months ago does not shox
that he is one now. aud Wetmore may
have reformed"
Mr.. Peterson then explained Wet
more's affidavit that he no longer had real
estate in the courts jurisdiction. and that
he himself had been for more than sixty
DAYS In British Columbia. out of the juris-
diction OF the court. II Is wetmore's In
courts ruling that no guardian can be ap-
pointed over him when he Is not in court
and is without its jurisdiction.
Soon After the appointment OF the guar
dian last year a suit ives begun by the
petitioners In the case TO set aside the deed
OF the forty acres of land and 10 recover
the money loaned by Wetmore 10 Young,
his son-in-law. This suit Vas never
brought 10 trial because of the unsettled
state ei the guardianship matter. and still
les N the superior court. There has also
been other litigation between Wetmore