The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-11-24
ALL OVER PROPERTY.
~ Steele Gets Land in Lien
of a Divorce.
TWAS THE CAUSE or TROUBLE.
~vxea Of Jarvis for 0sndisg Obscene
letters 90 the Mckenzie sisters
New suits-Ths Blostsr.

& r.~id II. Steele, the capitalist and mining
IN. vas tried by Judge Humes yester-
AZ and decree Of divorce refused the
vleiutjff. In spite of her sensational story
= he witness stand as 70 the treatment
- had received at her husbands hands.
IA real estate owned by the couple,
valued as about $45, 900 and unincumbered,
- declared by Judge Humes 70 b. COM
msp;fy property, and the defendant was
oedeset TO pay the costs, so IL was to Ger.
t6fn extent victory for Mrs. Steele.
The case was one that occasionsd great
deaI Of comment when the case was filed,
= account OF the standing OF the parties
and the allegations made OF fraud and
efnel treatment. In her testimony yester.
dsy Mrs. Steele, . small, determined-iook-
ng woman about IS years Of age and with
great deal of shrewdness apparent In her
esuntenance, told story merely corrob-
esatiss of the complaint. She said that
she and her husband were married In
Rockville. Canada, in 1866. and had
not lived happily together for many
pears Since she had been In So
sstls he had hardly lived with
her Ct ell, bat had been In Montana nearly
III Of the time. Their property was 90
situated that such an arrangement did
very well. She had had in her own name
the bulk Of the property in Seattle. valued
d some $4,000. but early In July, 1899,
her husband came over from Montana
He made representations that he had Just
eos possession of . valuabls mine which
81 needed about SIS, 600 to handle. If she
would deed him all the property in her
sans he would be able 70 get the loan, and
would repay her by giving her $2O.oo In
cash after the shaft he was about to sink
h the mine was down twenty feet. She
would be able to live upon the interest Of
Il then. AS an added inducement he Of
Erred to take her TO the Worlds fair In the
spring.
These promises deceived her, 90 she
nld, and she decided the property a re-
quesicd. On the same day, July S, she ac-
companied her husband down to the train
be was to take to 60 back 70 Montana. He
vent aboard and she went home. In the
dead OF night and while she was thinking Of
him on the way across the Cascade mount
sins. so she testified, her husband reap
peared at the house. He woke her up,
cursed and swore at her. drew pistol and
threatened to shoot her and ended by de-
daring that he had her Just where he
wanted her since now hc had all the land
IN bis own name. At this time he was
wearing different coat and hat from tho
ones he had worn on the train. She knew
Of no reason for his raising such . dis
surbance.
Then she said he did 20 away In garment,
hnt before he left he warned every one
that his wife owned no property In her
own name. asked all of her tenants not
to pay to her any moro rent, and threat
sned 20 make her leave the house she was
shsn living in. These were the crueitiss
Dhe relied upon a. grounds for q divorce.
Mr.. Steele. an elderly man, tall. black
syed and black-hairsd. told a very differ
snt tale. He secuted the story Of the
alleged fraudulsu. representations made
70 get the deeds and denounced IL as false.
The property had been oyer-valued by his
wife. and she thought that she could beat
him out Of 10 without trouble merely be-
cause there was plenty Of II. lie did not.
however, deny that be had not taken the
train to Montana tho night his wife had
mentioned and that he had returned to
the house. He explained that he was
jealous and had good reason TO think his
wife unfathfui TO him. The big revolver
which had figured in his wlfs's story was
absent In his.
Other witnesses TO the financial transac-
tons and domestic squabbles Of the pair
were sworn and testified and the case Was
argued. Mrs. Steele's attorney submitted
TO Judge Humes that 10 was evident no
love was lost between his client and her
husband and that divorce ought to be
granted giving her all of the Seattle prop
ersy az her individual share. In opposi-
ton Steele's attorney denounced the whole
affair as patent attempt On the part OF
Mrs. Steele, influenced by outside parties.
10 rob . deienceiess old man. Judge
Humes sided with neither party and after
summing up the case he refused the de-
cree. saying that the Seattle property was
not, however, the defendants individual
estate. but belonged 10 the community.
The only child Of the couple Is son.
man grown. living In Portland. Or.