The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-12-13

The wash day for the Van Alst;r. soi,.5
linen may never come The consniracv-3
.osce case brought by the Klondiker,s birds
IS now pending before Judge Moore an !
p'o1aon she has fled to dismiss the who,e
sur. Ine hlond.ker strongly opposed shr
iIioaoh, and after an argument lasting al,
oas Yesterday. the court adjourned with
~. su.ahs On me motion. In fact, the ar
morning. 'HiS
MIS- van Alstine's motion, her LAWYERS
contend. carries with IL not only the sis.
missai or her complaint, but OF her hus.
oano cross-complaint. asking for an an
nuiment of the alleged fraudu,en, mar
rage and OF the various orders to sheu
Sause as Wen. 1t is for this reason that the
hiondlker's attorneys are fighting the mo-
ton tooth and nail They claim thew nv,
the divorce, and even more than that. a ae.
cree OF me court sustaining the charge of
lrauo and conspiracy and compelling the
anegea conspirators to disgorge the $3l GOA
aieged 10 have been fiiched from the bride.
groom on his wedding tour.
Dore Springs the Surprise.
Inc motion was made by Attorney John
r. Dore Immediately upon the opening M
court. ana 20 all outward appearances, In
uoihs SO ne threw bombsheIl into the
hiondiker's camp. Attorney Ronald stood
ashast a, the cool request Of Mr.. Dore that
the court should dismiss the action u,on
rne payment OF all costs by Mrs. Van Al
stihe. Attorney Richard Winsor. his COL
league, betrayed much less surprise. There
mas been some talk to the effect that the
ton was the result Of . reconciliation
but II such is the case the lawyers are bef-
yer actors than usually tread the boards
IN Seattle. They certainly did not show
py "ord' act or deed yesterday that they
were not lighting more than a sham battle.
All parties interested in the case WIN
were present Friday appeared IN court
again yesterday morning, ready to resume
the contest. which had ended on Friday
evening with Mrs. Van Alstine on the stand
under cross-examination by Attorney Rom
AID. The latter opened the bah when the
case was called by announcing that he
would proceed first to fi,,sh with the ex-
animation OF the witness, j. D. Blake. NAV
ager Of the Pacific Postal Telegram c,om-
pany. He got no further than the announce
ment. for Attorney Dore. in the pol,test Of
tones, begged permission Of his brother,
to make "a little notion
Certainly. Brother Dore," afYably re-.
piled Mr.. Ronald. Then came the motion
and-tahleau
Attorney Dore was proceeding to argue
the motion. referring innocentiy to the civil
case which he and Mr.. Ronald RECENTLY
tried before Judge Moore. In which the
latter. much against Mr.. Dore's will. dis
missed the complaint of the plaintiff on the
motion of the latter's lawyer, Mr.. Rom
aid, greatly to the chagrin of Mr.. Dore and
his client, the defendant and cross-com-
piainant. Mr.. Dore seemed to think turn
about was fair play. and that the court
would make honors even by dismissing the
Van Alstine case.
Numberless Authorities Are Cited.
But Mr. Ronald could not see the case In
that light. and upon Judge Moore's request
ing Mr.. Dore to yield the floor to his op-
ponent, Mr.. Ronald proceeded to make a
vigorous argument against the motion. He
denied unqua'if7edly the right OF the court
10 dismiss Van Alstine's cross-complaint
The court. he said. was at liberty TO do
what IL pleased with the plaintiffs suit, but
could not interfere with Van Alstine's with
out the latter's consent The case cited by
Mr.. DoTe. the Kleinschmitt case, he said
was not the law nor were the cases upou
which II was based. An action for a d.
vorce. he said. was not an equitable action
Ike that of Kleinschmitt's, nor was an ac-
ton for divorce subject to the same rules
as a civil action Of any kind The action
for a divorce. he claimed. was sui generis
and did not abide by any of the precedents
cited by Mr. Dore or by himself in the
kleinschnlitt case.
The reply argument gave Mr.. Dore an
opportunity which he was quick TO improve,
OF insinuating at every chance offered that
Mr. Ronald had changed his views OF the
law since the Kleinschmitt trial. to all OF
which Mr.. Ronald voiubly excepted. II
was unfortunate Mr.. Dore gravely ar
gued that Van AlstIne's application for a
divorce and for an investigation OF the al
legged conspiracy should be dragged out OF
court with his wife's divorce complaint. but
that was the law. hard as IL was.
To this sally Mr.. Ronald replied a few
moments later. and shaking his long fore.
finger at Mrs. Van Alstine and her sister.
Miss Norton. seated at the table with Mr.
Dore. declared that Il was not the right Of
plaintiff TO dismiss the whole case: that
there were co-defendants who were charged
with serious ofyenses and who were called
20 account by Van Alstine's cross bill and
that Mrs Van Aistine should not do for
them what those co-defendants could not
DO for themSelves-stop the investigation
which was proving so much more serious
than they had anticipated
Attorney c. E. Shepard closed the fere-
noon argument In favor OF the notion COW
ering the same ground as had Mr. Ronald
In replying TO the latter's argument
Decision tn he Made Today.
Before aajourning for the noon recess
Judge Moore seemed strongly inclined TO
grant the motion. He told Attorney Ron
AID that he was sorry that the law was
a. Il was. but thar he was not making
laws only constituting them. Nevertheless
he allowed Mr.. Ronald until $50 o'clock IN
the afternoon TO bring additional aushori-
ties against the granting Of the motion
At about go o'clock Mr.. Ronald announc-
ed his readiness 10 proceed and did pro-
coed. 10 the length OF an hour ard A half,
reading from a bewildering array OF law
books which. ne said. were bat few Of
the hundreds OF authorities he could have
hrcugh; M.
Mr. Shepard made the answering a-gu-
merit and consumed the balance Of the az
ternoon. He had not yss finished when
court adjourned. but said he had only two
more authorities 10 cite. His principal
points were that the divorce suit. although
once special proceeding, was under the
laws OF this state an eqlistan.e action, ard
that Van AistiDe's contention ths, his
cross-compiaint coula no. be dismissed was
without ground. for the reason that il de-
manaef not divorce. but an annuIn,snf
81 the alleged fraudulent marriage.