The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-07-01

Espszn night ride with hsr. witness a
FIRST dtd not remember. but when proups-
Cd with names and other particulars. g
recalled the circumstances. though DIS
nnemery was vsg1e and he was under .ac
impression that be had done 50 n oroH
to arrange for Mrs. Dawson 10 SoiH :
party OF several. Many minute elrcufn-
stances. evidently suggested 10 tbs arsor-
nsy BY his client. who sat close oy, vine
Gid not remember. bat would not unesf
take 70 contradict
Asked AZ 10 his exact reason for sere-
hating from his wife, he replied:
1.-THE belief. FIRST tina; we could not ifVs
tremendously together. and secona, tnA1
she had conducted herself so that II she
were not guilty OF criminal intercourse
she could be justly charged with H.
Could abe be Justly charged with IL u
she were not gunfyT' asked Mr.. Inonp-
son.
II can conceive such . thing" replied
ths witness-
a latter from DR.. Dawson TO j. 7. Ronald.
dated Seattle. February !. was submitted
In evidence. The occasion on which X
was written Is sufficiently brought OUT IN
the letter Itself, which is as follows;
Dear Sir: / have been Informed this
afternoon By my attorney, Mr.. Carr. tnat
you have stated TO him tina, you have
Dawson. and that she has requested you
20 obtain a statement as TO my attitude
towards her and as 10 my intentions Ter
the future. In reply to this request l now
authorize you TO say to Mrs. Dawson taee
for reasons which l need not now explain
IL has become impossible that i should
longer live with her her husband 1
do not care to enter inte a discussion re-
garding the course which l shall pursue
I'm the future further than 10 say tnal
under no consideration viii consent TO
the custody OF our children being given
10 her. If a peaceable separation without
divorce. or a divorce without unnecessary
publicity, can be had and the children
left 10 my care and control. should De
very much pleased. I understand that
Mrs. Dawson has proposed q divorce upon
the following terms: First, the CUSTODY
of the children 10 he given 20 her; second,
liberal provision 20 be made for her by
way OF slimony. including the payment 10
her OF s3e.0o0 besides provision for month
ly support. ] cannot consider such prop
osition for q moment No matter by what
means our separation shall be brought
about. and no matter what the nature OF
the proceedings may be which shall re-
suit in either separation or divorce. l
shall always expect to provide an ample
support for her as far as my earning ca
pacity and my success In my profession
may permit me TO do.
This communicat ton Is addressed to you
because am informed that you have re-
quested a statement from me. Unless Mrs.
Dawson desires such statement from me.
desire that you will return this commu-
nication without communicating Its con-
tents TO her. as do not wish TO volunteer
any statement OF the kind.
I'm regard to the statement made TO you
by Mrs. Dawson. and also by Mrs. Dawson
to me-that for soma time past her move
ments have been watched-I have only this
10 say: Facts which came TO my attention
forced me to the conclusion that IL was alb
soluteiy essential for the protection OF my
self and my children that should be bet
ter advised regarding her conduct. and
took measures TO be SO advised When
Mrs Dawson made this statement 10 ma
last Thursday l did not feel justified in at
that time entering into a discussion or the
matter with her and therefore denied hav-
ing taken any measures OF that kind. l
felt justified in SO acting. Without now In
tending to admit the truth OF the different
statements which Mrs. Dawson informed
me had been made 10 her upon that SUBJ
ject. and without intending TO in any wise
discuss that matter now or hereafter. 40
wish to be understood as Withdrawing my
unqualified denial of her statement
IT have retained the law firm Of Carr q
Preston and L. c. Gilman as my attorneys
IN TINS matter, anu tnsy are outncrlLed 10
discuss the matter with you. Very truly
yours, L. r. DAWSON"
A feature of the day yesterday. SO far
as the sensational element OF the case Is
concerned. was the conspicuous absence OF
Charles Espiin. He had been subpenaei
by the counsel for the plaintiff, and was
on hand yesterday morning at the opening
OF court. expecting 10 be called as a'wit-
ness. but he was informed by that side
OF the case that he was not wanted, and
left the courthouse forthwith. He will be
put on the stand by the defense, probably
this afternoon. II is likely that the addi-
tionsl testimony for the plaintiff will eoa-
sumo but a short while this morning.