The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-07-13
The Wife's Third Effort to Sc
cure a Divorce.
HER SIDE OF The STORY
Weefsi Story OF Marital wrongs
Crueitiss and BratalisIes Alleged.
a Bitter Contest

Mrs Mary Steel against her husband,
David ii. Steel. on the ground OF series
on eruesties covering q period of years.
considerable community property Is in
VOWED In the suit and Mrs. Steel is anx-
ious TO be freed from him and to have her
snare OF the property, while the husband
objects TO her having q divorce. alleging
mat division OF the property will lessen
the inher1tance Of the only child. the issue
OF their marriage. Mr.. Steel has been liv-
ing IN Montana for many years and was
reputed to be wealthy in mines and
other property, though the showing made
oy the wife in her complaint places the
value OF all the property In which each
and both have q legal holding at only
$49. 600.
The trial of the case promises TO be .
long one, If yesterdays legal struggle may
be used as an index. Both sides have
evidently determined on strong fight,
and Mr.. Steel appeared yesterday with
two of the most prominent law firms in
the city TO represent his interests, while
the wife came supported by Two equally
strong legal firms Every point on which
legal technieality will stick is being
used by both sides. and Judge Battle was
tons and noting exceptions.
The entire day was consumed in fighting
legal questions and hearing the evidence
OF Mrs. Steel and one other witness, n. III.
Hamilton, paperhanger. Mrs. Steel was
on the witness stand all day up 10 o'clock
and gave woeful picture of her marital
relations. This is the third suit that she
hiss brought 10 secure divorce, the two
other suits going against her.
Her testimony developed that she is So
years old, and sick and iniirm as the re-
suit of her husbands treatment. They
were married February 81. 1866. st Brock
vile. Canada, and only one child, Charles
Steel, is the issue. BY their joint efforts
they acquired, since their marriage, prop
erty valued at $40 900. described as follows:
The east one-fourth of lots and 2 of
block number 80, ID. s. Maynard's plat of
the city, the legal title of which is in her
name; valued at 5000. and of rental
value of $40 q month: lot 5, block %, in A.
A. Denny's addition to Seattle. the legal
title of which is in her name, and valued
at $1,000 with rental value
of SIG q month; lot II, block 55,
OF ID. I. Denny's park addition to Seattle.
tho legal title of which is in her name,
valued at 81. COO and having a rental value
of $40 a month, the property being en-
numbered with a $1,000 mortgage; lot 8,
block IL, West Seattle's first plat, the legal
title Of which Is IN her name, valued at
500. unimproved. OF no rental value: lot
III, block ~, of Foster IL Leggat addition
to the townsite OF Butte, Mont. the legal
title to which Is I'm her name. valued at
s. 900 and of arental value of s25 month;
lot 30, block %. in Butte, Mont. the legal
title Of which is in her name. valued at
$50. 600. with a rental value of 500 a month !;
the west half of lots 10. IL and II, of block
os, in Butte, Mont. the legal title 10 which
is In his name. valued at 5000. and of q
rental value of $50 q month; south half of
lot PIG. in block IS. In McGee's addition TO
Kansas City, Mo-. the legal title of which
Is In his name, valued At 5000, with a
rental value of S20 q month: twenty-seyen
acres in New Westminster district. British
Columbia, the legal title Of which is in his
name. valued at s.. coo. unimproved and Of
no rental value In addition to these in-
cumbrAnces there is a judgment i'm the
superior court against the defendant for
$50. which Is lien on all the real estate.
The total value OF sll the property over
the liens is $4,000. with q rental value Of
800 a month. In January, is92. the two
agreed in writing that she should control
the Seattle property and he all the rest.
Last November she made another effort to
=
court order determining the ownership be-
tween the two Of all the property. Since
that time, however, her husband has as
sumed control Of all the property and APP
pointed agents TO collect rents. which be
kept for his own use and TO her entire
neglect. and then left Seattle, keeping his
whereabouts unknown to her. She alleges
that he not only refused to lot her have
.. "A rutF III ali -
but took away her furniture and refused to
make any provision for her maintenance
unless she agreed TO relinquish TO
him all of her interests in the
property. The alleged acts of cruelty
were the result of her refusing to
comply with his requests to reIinquish
her share In the property. She recited the
care she took OF the property when in her
possession previous To last November,
making Improvements, paying taxes, as
sessmepts, repairs, interest on mortgages
and building two houses. Bills covering
these OUTLAWS were introduced in evidence;
also statement OF the amount of money
she had received from her husband cover
ing the many years Of their separation, he
in Seattle and she in Butte. The amounts
received from him aggregate between
$1,000 aud 5000. and were used by her in
liqaidatiag many of the bills she offered in
evidence. She stated that, after collecting
the rents and paying all the bills. she
would be leit with only about $40 = month
while he was in Montana, and refused 10
send her any more money.
He would almost always come 10 Seattle
dead broke" and she would have to give
him some money with which To get back
TO Montana. and even TO buy his clothes.
He would keep her in q constant state Of
fear, Suhiecting her to petty annoyances.
aud insisted on her Keeping strict ac-
count Of every cent spent. even 20 postage
stamps. and finding fault with her because
she used too many of them, telling her
that she should write fewer letters and not
be so extrayagant While in Seattle. he
would subject Der 10 all sorts of Indigni-
ties. de had once ehoked her and threat
ensd 10 kill her If she did not stop trying
10 get a divorce; NJ the time the child was
born be insuited her grossly, accused her
of infidelity with Dougan. man she had
euploged as agent whom she discharged
A, her husbands request, and who vas
subsequently re-empioved at the hus-
bands request On one occasion he tod
her he vas going back 70 Montana, aud
bade her goodbye after she had put up a
lunch fos him. Instead of going away he
returned 10 the house late IN the night.
ana as she Was very timid and did not
know who il y IS she refused 70 open the
door. He then burst the door open and
rushed in with revolver. which lie
showed in her ear. threatening 10 kill her.
en- ~ h- Ea4f y4fr IN az W asa