The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-12-08
HlNSIOCk'S ANSWER FILED.
DENIES COMPLETELY IN ALLEGED
VAN ALsTINE CONSPIRACY.
Ayers That the kiOndfker Was
Perfectly sober when He Mar
ried Lon Spear-Case VIII BE
Tried Before Judge Moore.

II the affidayits ard cross-comp plants In
the celebrated case Of Lou Van Alssine
against Con Val Aistire continue 10 De
fled in as great numbers as during the
past few weeks, il will require busnei
basket to hold the copies Of the papers.
and half an ordinary volume in the clerk
office to contain record of them
Yesterday the answer of Melvin u. VIII
stock TO the cross-compialnt of the de-
PENDANT. Con Van Aistine, together with
the answer OF the plaintiff, Lou Van Al
slime TO the same cross-compla-nt, and sew
eral minor aff.da Wits were filed IN the SUI
perior court. A notice was served on the
plaintiffs by the attorneys for Con Van Al
st:ne that when the case comes up ior
hearing tomorrow before Judge W. n
Moore, they would ask the court for per-
mission to examine a number OF witnesses
orally before the court, namely, Lou Van
Alstine Emma Norton, A. Is. Noyes. X
r. Spencer, cashier OF the National Bank
of Commerce, and NJ. Ashley.
Mr. Winstock's answer TO the cross
complaint of Van Alstine sets forth the
Allegation that his sole connection with the
marital affairs OF the Van A,s;ines was
that at their reaues, he procured a mar
Rage license and that at the special IN
stance of Mrs Van Aistine he began Oh
vorce proceedings, having been retained
by her as counsel In the matter.
Mr.. Winstock further alleges that the
facts surrounding the marriage were not
unusual: that he was unacqualnted with
the financial affairs of Mr.. Van Ais1ne,
and was totally ignorant OF the travels ana
the troubles of plaintiff and defendant IN
New York. London and elsewhere, and tur-
tner denies that he knew A. b. Noyes be-
fore or at the time OF the marriage. or
that he counseled either Mr.. Noyes or Mrs
Van Ais;ine concerning any matter IN any
way appertaining 20 the marriage.
Finally, il is alleged by the attorney tnat
the defendant was not intoxicated at the
time OF the marriage. but that ne appeared
10 be In full possession of his faculties
Mr. Winstock further states that he never
advised Mrs. Van Aistine TO marry the de-
PENDANT, Con Van Alstine; and also denies
the charge that he knew Of a conspiracy
or participate ted In any alleged transaction
relative to the disposition. transfer or con-
cealment of any money or property Wnlcn
1t Is claimed belonged TO Van Alst.ne. MI
Winstock In concluding the affidavit. de-
MES that he has In his possession or under
his control any money In any way con-
nected with the case
Mrs. Van Astine, in her answer 10 the
defendants cross-complaint. admits me
marriage with the defendant In Seattle last
January. She says that her information
concerning his prospects and his financial
standing was obtained from Van Alstlne
prior to the marriage. She admits that
they went TO San Francisco after the nun
tials and that Van Alsiine gave her $4,000
in drafts after he had cashed in his gold
She denies that she ever cons plred with
Moves or Winstock OF anyone else 10 de-.
fraud the defendant.