The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-06-23
LIVES GONE WRONG.
ABusy Day at the Divorce Mill
On the Hill
me- ponr.us DISAGREEMENT
n. @. Fl. r. spariinG's wife Co Sue
Him for Divorce, Alleging Aban-
Comment Court News.

II will grant fn1 divorce, but before
he decree is signed / WI give this mat
- additional thought" said Judge Os-
hsyn yesterday. as the divorce feature
~ the case Of Ella r. Pentsus va. Frank
a Pontius VAS brought TO a finish. The
matter demanding additional thought was
4 the settlement Of nat portion OF the
family controversy relating TO the prop
cry.
In the north wing Of the courthouse the
dsrfy linen OF the Dawson family was be-
sux aired, with sensational effects, while
n the south end % the building the nup-
tlaf knot Of another of seattie's prom
snent families was being united without
any ado whatever. In fact. such another
1iTorce case In which sang froid was such
! conspicuous quantity has never been
thought up In a King county court. All
az the references 10 Bnfaitbfnlness that
appeared ia Ars. Pontlus' complain. had
heen stricken out, and the adjustment OF
the difficulties of the Enisnated pair hung
on a commercial value OF dollars and
cents.
Mr.. rontius sat In court In the earlier
hours Of the afternoon listening TO his
wiss's testimony a. calmly and stoicaIiy
a. though he had no particular interest
In the case. When values however we're
rrensloned he would look a. his attorneys
IN an inquiring way and display . pass
ing concern In the way the case was go
.ux While the attorneys were arguing
Mrs. r0ntlus would steal flrtIve glance
In the direction of the defendant to mark
the effect OF certain strong statements
in which her attorneys. WIN n. Gay and
Tom Hardin. would indulge themselves.
The young son OF the contendlng parties
divided his time and attention between
his father and mother and furnished no
particular interest tn the case. He finally
grew tired OF the proceedings and left thu
court room
After a part OF the arguments had besn
made Judge Osborn remarked that ne had
heard nothing that would Justify d.
voros but thai tho case appeared 10 be-
one In which the court was asked 70 set
tie some difficulties regarding property.
Mr. Hardin then reminded the court that
those features alleging the fulIness OF tho
strained relations had been eliminated,
but reminded tho court that a refusal to
cohabit constituted cruelty before tho
Law. and that the personal abuse heaped
upon sensitive woman by calling her vile
and opprobious names. would be cruelty
In her case, where II might not be I'm 9TH
er walks OF life; citing. for examples. the
lower stratas OF society. where epithets
and curses are the daily portion OF some
women. who are disappointed II they DO
not receive them. Several features OF the
cass that were intended TO remain I'm the
"
tion OF cruelty in the case In point fully
established
The remaining hours Of the session were
used In arguments regarding the division
Of the property. At $50 Judge Osborn,
after allowing the matter OF divorce 10 ha
put beyond reach OF further discussion.
said that he would allow the attorneys
10 meet with the parties to the suit and
agree upon settlement Of the pronerfy
interests. that II acceptable TO the court
would be allowed TO stand. Judge Os-
born stated that In taking up the matter
as the attorneys had left II he had pain
fui duty 10 perform. He deplored the
fact that II had been an impossihlifty TO
reconcile the parties: that the existence
OF their children had not seemed 10 affec.
the strained relations between them. and
that the division OF the estate. which
meant almost ruination OF the valuable
property. and In which the chlldren's In
terests appeared had not served to bring
them to an understanding
Yet" continued Judge Osborn, "a home
should be home. and IL children are TO
benefit by living with their parents then
the relations OF those parents should be
such that they viii be- lesson No chill
fren could possibly benefit by living with
parents. no matter how luxurious the sur
roundlngs. II those parents were NOT hap
py In their relations. am convinced that
ucs@ peufiF can never again i've fogath-
Or tremendously. The antirathy toward
each other is too firmly rooted. and under
such circumstances IL fs best that they
should be separated
I'm dividing this property / would sax~
gest 70 the attorneys that they give the
plaintiff such property "a they may, that
shall be Free of all inoumhranee. IL would
be Impossible for her 20 save property
that might be awarded 90 her that was
covered with membranes
Judge Osborn also suggested that thu
family residence he given 20 Mrs. Pontius
and ali OF the furniturM