The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1907-02-26
Divorced wife Wants Mopeu Ma6e
After Separation
MANY INTRICATE POINTS COME UP
PROPERTY BOUGHT FOR $500
NOW WORTH $4,000 AND
WOMAN WANTS SOME.

1: TACOMA, Feb. 26.-Can woman
who has secured decree of divorce,
later come into court and secure a
share of property which has been ac-
/ quired by her former husband after the
! granting of the decree? This is the
question developed in the novel and un-
usual suit brought by Eliza Wallis
against Charles Wallis, which has had
!; a hearing in the superior court and in
which Judge Chapman will render a
decision Saturday.
The main facts as presented in the
case are that in February, 1902, the
plaintiff secured divorce from the
defendant. At the time of the decree
household furniture, and this was dis
posed of by division. No alimony was
| provided in the decree
| In 1904 the defendant acquired by
purchase a lot situated at the corner
of South Twenty fourth street. and Pa
cific avenue. The price paid at the
time of purchase was $500, but since
! that time the property is said to- have
increased in value until it is now worth
$4,000. 1t is this property in which
the plaintiff now seeks to secure a
share as alimOny under a modified de.
cree in the divorce suit of 1902.
| Mrs. Wallis Argument.
In seeking such alimOny at this time
the plaintiff contended that if the de-
PENDANT purchased the property in 1904
for $500 he must have done so with
Imoney which he had had before the
divorce proceedings and which he hat
secreted from the plaintiff, this as
sumption being based on the inability
of the defendant to earn and acquire
that sum in two years. The secOnC
argument was that of changed cOndi.
tion,' the plaintiffs counsel arguing
that in cases where at the time of the
divorce no property was held but wa:
later acquired the defendant SHOULD
then be compelled to provide support il
the same manner as would be granted
if the property holdings existed at the
time of the decree.
The Defendants Reply.
In cOntesting the case the defendan
showed by testimony that the proper
ty had been acquired by the earning:
Of him Golf ol1pct n,odn aftp1
the entry of decree of divorce, and tina
no. funds had existed in which there
could be community interest. AS t.
the second contention of the plaintiff
it was argued that no statutes existed
which provided for a future award o.
alimony or modification of a decree az
to such, unless the decree itself pro
vided for such future award as wa:
granted. subject to the further orders
of the court. Such a provision, it was
argued, was not contained in the decree
and that, therefore. the plaintiff
could not now seek modification.
Interesting Features.
The decision in the case will receive
close attention since several fine
points are involved. In speaking of the
case today a prominent attorney said
:, Should the plaintiff win it will de-
velOp some interesting features in tht
divorce line. Surprising a case IKE
this: A man and woman marry, the
woman later securing divorce. Al
the time of the decree there is nOprOp-
erty and no alimony is allowed. Ther
suppose the man marrieS again and by
the aid of his second wife acquires
property. His second wife secures dl-
vOrce from him. Now, could the first
wife come in and secure a share of
property in which she had had no part
in saving or earning, but which had
been acquired solely by her husband
] and wife No. 2? You can see from that
! the number of intricate questions that
could arise