The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-11-07
oYER THE CHILDREN.
penewal Of the Shafer Divorce
Hostilities.
! Writ or HasEAs CORPUS.
- Fsfhsr Says the Mother stole Their
psuehsers-Hsover Damage Case
rhrown oat-Eioster.

rks perennial divorce suit Of Mar L.
eh.<er against her husband, Adelbert w.
xhxfer. again comes into court before
5a1es Langley today. bat not for trial. for
!. vss dismissed by Judge Humes on DC
sok<r II. but on the return TO q writ Of
kebsas corpus petitioned for by shsfsr
9estertay. So sensational were some Of
ihe ail<gations made against Mrs. shafer
"a 3. w. Clark and wife In the petition
ma Judge Langley issued citation for
fhen 10 appear In court today and answer
fh<n, bringing with them Florence and
lJjes shafer, the children of the plaintiff
nd defendant. and the persons alleged in
- srit TO be deprived Of their liberty.
Tbs complaint In the case Was fled last
June By Mrs. Shafer. who asked for the
eastody Of both children, then In the Gus
tody Of her husbands mother. The court
led 10 order shsfer 20 give sons reason
xhy bis wife could not see them on almost
ne same day the complaint Was flied, as
tie latter claimed the privilege was not al
Ioxed her, and from that time on the
cosrt was kept busy attending to the
MINOR details OF the case. At last Judge
Humes became satisfied that Mrs. Shafer
was not trying to obtain divorce very
hard and dismissed her complaint. At
Ills ruling OF the court Shafer was not at
III pleased. and took exceptions and gave
notice of an appeal. Probably the true
reason that the suit Was never brought 10
trial was that shafer wanted both the chill
drtn. while bis wife wanted one herself,
and that Mrs. Shafer did not want her
name dragged through the courts. ~ she
Expresses IL; at least this 10 the explana-
Hon indicated In ehafer's petition for the
wit Of habeas corpus filed yesterday.
The petition recites that Florence NJ.
fhafsr aud Alice p. shafsr. aged o and
pears respectively. are uniawfully re-
strsincd and Imprisoned by May l.. Sha-
ier, 5. w. Clark aud Mary 8. Clark. The
petitioner states that the children are his
and that May j.. Shafer 10 his wife; that
he Is satisfied that the children are kept
hidden and away from him by her for tho
sole purpose OF compelling him to act In
coliusion with her in obtaining q divorce;
ana that Clark and his wife are aiding in
carrying out the plan. In addition to the
petition he files an affidavit setting out the
same facts and In addition stating that his
wife. upon his refusal TO coiiude with her
n getting divorce, made threats that she
(
him 10 see them again. As evidence in
support of the last allegation he sets ont as
. copy OF communication received by
him from Mr.. Clark. the first paragraph in
bis wife's handwriting and the second In
Mr. Ciark's. the following:
III Dell will only DO what il right and
les me get divorce or get one himselfand
not havs either name dragged through
court, all ask Is for him to sign some
agreement that will be binding for both
him and me; that IL the fair thing. III he
don't do anything then. will go where he
will never see the children again. and
must know pretty soon. MAMIE"
my idea Of a proposition would be to
divide the children. you 10 say which one
yon want. and AZ the end of one year sue
FOR q divorce on the ground of desertion
and let it end without throwing dirt on
either side. That way would involve but
little expense. ). w. CLARK"
The writ and citation were served last
might, and this morning the respondents
will appear ITO be dealt with according to
law" to use the language Of the citation.
shafer Is q stonecntter by trade and was
sued for divorce on the ground OF aban-
Comment He denies the truth Of the
complaint In an answer. In the plcadings
both parties accuse their mothers-in-law Of
undue interference.