The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-11-21
MARTIN NOT N CONTEMPT
SUPERIOR Court HOLDS HIS IMs
PRIsONNENr ILLEGAL.
Divorce Decree DID Not Provide for
Payneat Of Permanent Alineny
e Divorced Wife-IAw Peants
Raised Are Not All Decided.

H. c. Martin. file clerk In the county
clerks office. Is a free man again. Techni-
caIly, although not In reality, be has been
In the county jail for Eeafiy month un-
der an order OF the superior court commit
ting him for contempt in falling TIC COM
ply with decree requiring him TO pay JIG
a month alfmony 10 his divorced WIFE,
Josie Martin.
Martins delivery from the technical Gus
tody OF the sheriff of King county Is the
result OF a decision handed down by Judge
Jacobs of the superior court, yesterday In
a habeas corpus case brought by Aartin'
who claimed that the court had no jurls-
dIction 10 commit him for contempt, ana
that therefore his Imprisonment was He
gal.
Although Judge Jacobs does not decide
squarely upon all points raised by Mar
tins petition. he holds that the divorce de-
cree was not sufficiently definite In lis
terms 20 justify Martins commitment Tor
refusal TO pay alimony. fpf that ,sasua
Marlin is discharged from technical eas-
tedy. while his former wife - given pet
mission TO have the decree amended III such
manner that the payment OF alimony may
be enforced.
year ago by Judge Jacohs. and Martin
continued TO pay the alfrnony Tor anoat
year. Then, having remarked, and eeeem-
Ing angered at statements which ne claim
him, he ceased to contribute TO her sup
port She began contempt proceedings
against him. and at a hearing before Dep
NY iroseensing Amor m,, mss. aa Commit
ted 10 Jail.
In making the application for a writ OF
habeas corpus Martins lawyer. Col H. IL
Lindsay. raised two main points. first, that
SPECIAL Judge Fulton's appointment was ir-
regular and second that the court had
no power In the absence of an express sta-
permanent aiimony by attachment or i'm
prisonment under contempt proceedings:
Attorney E. II. Cute represented Mrs.
Martin. and upheld the validity OF Judge
On the first point Judge Jacobs. In q writ
ten opinion handed down yesterday, holds
that while Mr. F'ultons appointment was
attnrnsx ;h &c pa sr, IN the ap
pointment, and are estopped from raising
objection TO the special judges turisdic-
ton. on the second point Judge Jacobs
says that IL Is very doubtful whether the
court has the power 10 enforce permanent
divorce decreee regarding property rights.
aiimony. etc, by attachment. but that the
courts OF King county have long been In
the custom Of doing so.
Continuing. he says In substances: while
no doubt the state statute Tor divorces
should receive liberal construction. yet 1t
is hard logically to force any legitimate
Inference out OF the language used anthor-
iaing the court to fasten aiimony UPON the
future earnings OF the party. But the
court can enforce the common law ohiiga-
ton Of the father TO support or contribute
TO the support of his minor children. and
I have no doubt but that IL this sis n month
alimony had been by proper words in tho
decree given for the maintenance and sup
port of these minor children, the court
could enforce IL.
but, TO my establishment In shis case
nothing in said in the final decree about
aiimony for the support Of the children or
the divorced wife. ! do not think that 1t
would be stretch OF the power Of the
cour, 10 compel the father by attachment
other proper process To contribute to
tho support OF his minor children. The
difficulty In this case Is that the final de-