The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-07-27
qHE ESTATE DIVIDED.
u,s Steel Gets a Divorce and
the Seattle Property.
ues HUSBAND TAKES THE REST
-. Rattle Thinks MIRA steel Was
,.a,.creet, but Not GuIlty-Mrs.
Harriet shesrer's VIII.

s,sred Battle, as Judge pro tenn, REM
x.rsd his decision yesterday In the famous
80 divorce case, which has been drag
- through thee courts for 9the past
ssl-rsn DAYS awarding Mrs. Steel divorce
"a dividing the estate 50 that she gets all
100 Seattle property and Mr. Steel the
rortana mining property and other
..Inor holdings in othls country and Can
y. Judge Battle szidotslat the evidence
"a not show ahat Mr.. Steel had refused 10
.auport his wife. neither was 1t sAown
ssst Mrs. Steel had been guilty Of adultery
nth James Dugan, but rnasmnch as 1t
- uroyen that the couple7could not live
ssssther on account Of oineompatibiHty OF
,..upsr the divorce was granted and the
p,opsrty divided @
Judge Battles decision was OF consider
,bls length anu he reviewed the whole
1.ss and commented upon the more i'm
sartant points brought out inG the testi-
nony. he related that the community
rroperty of the couple in Seattle WIS
sssaed at s1s. 100. there being no incum-
trsnce OF any kind. The Montana prop
srsy be valued at $500; Missouri props
rfy at 500. and property at New
Nestminster at $780, Thus the whole
state, from tho judges estimate, has
rslus Of 81, 800, which Is quite falling off
rom the sum in common repute. Mr..
eseg being known as the Montana mill
knare." La rendering his decision Judge
Battle said In part: g
"The defendant charges the plaintiff
sith adultery with one James Dugan. /
have given this charge a careful considera-
.s.rtv. y Of ha "a
lie rules OF law as understand them, the
painsiff is not guilty. do find. however,
hat she has been guilty of indiscretion.
susssbly thoughtless, and that both she ana
Nj. Dagan have been guilty OF conduct
which justified the defendant In becoming
suspicIous. But cannot and from the
iaismony, and / don't believe from the
tstimony, that she has been guilty Of
aazitery with this party"
Ii the course of the trial It was limited
fAE Mr.. Dugan had an eye on the Seattle
rsysrty belonging to the Steel estate.
esnnenting on this the judge said
sihink Mr.. Steel had an idea that Mr..
nsrss had In view this property, and am
lfp that conclusion myself. Ii seems 10
ne the numerous visits of Dugan to Mrs.
szsl are more consistent with this theory
isan the one Of adultery: that either Mr..
Dugan possibly had In view the fact that
hess parties might some time accumulate
this city valuable property and that he,
either the sale, management or control
Il such property might reap pecuniary
benefit.
s'The only act OF cruelty in this action
sh,ch was not passed upon by Judge
Humes In former cases and which has
occurred since. Is the act of the defendant
N having the plaintiff arrested on false
charge of larceny. liz must be
said 10 the defendants credit, however,
that though living Tor about ten years
apart and 1900 miles from the plaintiff.
during ell this time he abundantiy cared
for her up TO November %, 1898. i don't
think there mas ever been any disposition
Of the defendant 10 deny the plaintiff
proper support
Nov, ii the decree of divorce were
esnied in this case, there would have TO
ksdecree made looking toward the sup
prs of the plaintiff; that would give rise
y further litigation in the future. IL is
insossIble to regulate by an ironclad de-
unwhat shall be the amount of support
" defendant shall furnish the plaintiff
Ssfing the balance of her natural life. |
thlnk It Is for the best interests of both of
iAsse parties, to save them future expense.
future litigation. future trouble and future
contentious that they be divorced and
this property be divided. In granting this
divorce l do not find the defendant any
more euipabls than the plaintiff, 80 far as
regards the grounds on which this de-
elsion is based. The plaintiff lives in SEE
attic and the defendant in Butte. Mont,
hence | conclude and decree that the
bonds of matrmony1 be dissolved and
divorce granted thee plaintiff, and that
each party pay tlfe costs oofo suit re-
speetively by them incurred. The defend
ant Is also directed TO pay the plaintiff
within sixty days the sum OF $3.50 alio wed
BY the court heretofore" SO
In the course of his remarks Judge Bat
Tie commented on the present circum-
stances Of the two parties TO ths action.
lie referred to the fact that the couple
were married in the early eos and said
TIE evidence showed that at the time of
TOE marriage Mr.. Steel was seized of
property which he subsequently sold for
Hoo while Mrs. Steel had neither money
nor property; that foE years both worked
bard and their earningswere put together
Tor the common benefit of both. The evil
dehce also showed that only one child was
bern to the couple, boy. Charles Steel.
how long since past his, majority, whose
present home is in Portland.
Mr. sVel. Mrs. Steel and the array Of
attorneys or both sides were present dur
lag the rendering of the decision. Mrs.
aesI and her attorneys were satisfied with
me findings, bat Mr.. Steel was anything