The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-03-24
Yukon Camp Stove
Endorsed BY practical Alaska Miners as the
Correct Thing. Call and eco it
z C. NILES CO, iis b ia Yu1 Va. s pAv..sss

NE That Is not . question a. issue. We
are willing to provide for immediate needs.
and 70 advance such other moneys as may
be required when the neceeEty for them
- large enough sum 20 be pasd 81 the
present time"
Custody Of the Children.
The closing arssimsnf was made by VIII
II. Thompson We are nol In the domain
OF Speculation" he SAID 1T il not TO be
supposed that any man Will charge the
mother of his children with adul-
terry urlsss he has the proof TO
sustain his charges: and to &C.
Il bissh sssch charge. II Is en0seh 10 prone
single instance. while here we have given
number OF nAm>s OF correspondents. with
definite places and times and q number
OF others whose ideniisy 1t 10 said - not
s1sfhc.ently known. In order ciiy 10 prove
tha charge set forth IN the complaint as
= basis for divorce. IL was not necessary to
bring IN fourteen insta noes. and there must
hsve been some other object What are
tfcze charges in Tacomes What are they
fory Why is Il necessary TO extend these
charges 10 Portland? Way Aiameda2
Why Los Angeles? Why " II thar thsre
ara such charges OF shameless and iewd
conduct extending over an entire week In
Los Angeles. There can oz but one object,
and that object Is 10 OBTAIN from her the
custody OF her children.
II suppose the she wolf. when her young
are about TO be taken from her. viii he
accorded the right TO fight: and we say
that IN order for this defendant to inset
the charges made against her by parties
whose aames arc not known. !, Is abso-
hteiy necessary for her counsel 10 go
where these people 1--WE. who saw this de-
fendznt. and who saw the acts complained
OF In these charges.
II remember that this court. in Q similar
case. with tina scorR said he would not
ask counsel to approach for aid the party
who had made such charge. and don't
think that any self-respecting counsel
would do so.
Mark you. DR. Dawson lived with his
wife up to the LIST of February. when sud
denly he made all those discoveries Gnu
msrated In the complaint. Now. that took
either money or Il took bad faith: either
he had money with which TO ferret out
these accusations. or he acted In bad faith
in making these charges.
Going TO Fight.
This case Is going to b fought. Wa
viii not tameiy submit 10 those charges
There are a number OF cases widely scat
tered: and they must be met. and they
will be met We ask You TO require DR.
Dawson, having brought this multiple
charge, TO furnish money TO defend MS
wifc's side OF the case, as he would IKE
to see defeaded a similar charge against
his mother or his sister, for their reputa-
tons are 10 more dear 10 them than Is her
reputation TO her"
The Deci.ion.
In announcing his decision, Judge
Humes referred TO the number and TO the
gravity OF the charges and also to the TACT
that neither party seemed TO have ready
cash II was absolutely necessary that
there he some money TO defend. as well as
10 prosecute. the presumption o-ing that
there was "a defense. the court refusing 10
take for granted that such charges were
true until they had been proven. IL was
20 be expected that the wife would lake
her own property 10 assist IN preparing her
defense Tho order above outlined was
then entered as a provision for suit money
Dr. Dawson to furnish support for his fam
fiy IN addition 10 the s4oo 10 be furnished
IN the next thirty daye. and the defense to
have the privilege of application 10 the
court for further allowances Z deemed
necessary.
Mrs. Dawson's story
In her AFFIDAVIT Mrs Dawson states that
when the property OF her mothers heirs
was divided in the early part OF lsss. there
fell 20 her portion in this city appraised
at that time by D. I. Denny. William IL.
Hues and William Coffman AT eiss5. In
addition she owned an interest in lands in
Whatcom county not mentioned IN DIR.
nawson's affidavit. and also two lots In
the Heirs OF Sarah A. Bells Second addi-
ton, previously given to her by her moth
err II IL not true. Mrs. Dawson says. that
she controlled the property and the funds
derived from It's sale or mortgage. but on
the contrary IL was controlled absolutely
and completely by DR.. Dawson until the
mortgages began 20 press for their money
and to threaten foreclosure. Then. she
states, DIR. Dawson failed to pay the taxes.
and persuaded her to turn over a large
portion Of the property TO the mortgages
for the debt. although it's value was far In
excess Of the Indebtedness. Her husband
borrowed money upon her estate whenever
he desired TO DO so, and trusting 70 his judy
ment she signed mortgages when he re-
quested a.
After discussion of several financial
transactions set forth Ia Mr.. Dawson's
AFFIDAVIT iacorrsotly Mrs Dawson says. she
admits that out Of the 1900 borrowed from
Fens IN October. 1891. the Downing mort
gage 81 81 80 was paid on. hut the s., 80
remaining Was used by Or. Dawson. out Of
S. o. borrowed In May. 1888. he paid one
OF her notes for $50. "a mortgage OF 81 90
was given 20 take up the Mey mortgage.
bat Il rsili remains unsatished. Mrs paw-
son then gives in detail the following fig
ures;
Receipts
Sales and mortgages. ,s9S. 20 s.