The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-01-14
HUSBAND GETS NOTHING.
rnable TO secure Damages for the
Frivolity or His Wife.

Alfred Blodgett gets nothing for bring
hra charge that his wife Elsie had been
srticeG away from home by s. Clein. al
though he asked the modest sum OF $4,000
A damages for alienation OF her affections.
TIE case was tried before Judge Osborn
AID jury yesterday afternoon, and a YER
Diet was reached IN three minutes. fust
enough time for the jury TO cast one bal
loi. II was shotgun feed" as a sawmill
rsAn would say.
There was quite an array OF witnesses
when the case was called. and the testimo-
~ showed that Blodgett. who last sum-
rer was conducting a ranch near McMil-
ln had been on very poor terms with his
better half; indeed, there was a great deal
3 the evidence 10 indicate that he had
beaten and otherwise abused her. In Au-
Egst she disappeared from home, and ac-
cSrtirg 10 the husbands story, Cieln en-
tied her away. after which he continued
. I've with her openly. In time the alleged
intimacy was discontinued, and Blodgett
took back his wife. although the damage
suit was allowed to come TO trial
AZ the hearing yesterday was the syecta-
Gle OF a husband charging his wife with
noiarious violation OF the marriage vow,
and yet sitting by her side IN court while
tie evidence accumulated to make out the
accusation She s. not a bad looking woIn-
81. Of medium height. rather thick set, reg
uln features, hlue-eyed brunette. At
tines she smiled, then again hung her head
and appeared Ill az ease. There was no
fe1sational testimony, not even when CIein,
q bald-headed. gallow-complexio gray
rustached man. OF about 40. took the stand
TIE nearest approach TO q scene was when
Attorney Benson. in the course OF his ar
rzent. dramatically waved his hand In
Z. direction or the witnesses and said:
70 build up this case they have search
eflr and wide. and have brought into this
ealrt the slums OF the city"
hat was too much for one OF the wit
Kisses. comely woman. whose heightened
ralor betrayed her feelings. She appeared
aaout 20 rise up. ready to make an open
snack on The unsuspect!ng advocate, and
ne two hailiffs started forward 10 seize
her. But quiet was restored by Judge Os-
born, who calmly said:
let those In the court room remain
QUIET"
The Injunction was needed, but the irate
witness was not paciled. At adjournment
shs was looking for the man who said it,"
but ne had disappeared.
In his instructions 20 the Jury, the court
SAID In part that II the plaintiffs wife had
h,i him freely and voluntarily. and after
q season had taken up with another man,
here had resulted no cause OF action
against him for entIcing her away. Al thu
zane time the jury was 10 consider the
fact that the parties were again living to-
gether. mo matter how a married cou-
PIE II situated" said the court. mo man
las right 70 interfere, and II he does he
becomes liable. Every man has the ex-
elusive right TO the society and comfort
0; bis wife" Continuing. the court said
,hs Jury was 20 consider the relations ex-
sting between the parties prior 10 the time
e the alleged injury, and 20 decide whether
here was any love or affection 70 Re
broken. and whether the loss OF the wife
rnter the circumstances was a deprlva-
ton. While Il was proper 10 consider how
IRE man and wife had lived together, the
fast tha. their relations had not been the
most pleasant. resulting In separation az
t,rsren, times. would not give any man =
Yxht &c interfere. II the defendant had
taken the wife away and lived with her
II adultery, that act would constitute an
t,'gry. and ~ such were the fact the Jury
eoul. ina FOR damages IN whatever amount
re husband might have suffered. X was
q Mitigating circumstance thai the wife
hsi returned 70 her husband.
There was no exception taken 20 the
charge. and the verdict giving no damages
vas announced 10 the court In very few
minutes.