The 'Indolent' Husband Who Fired His Lawyer
When William Allen was sued for divorce by a wife who claimed he was too lazy to support her, he decided to represent himself—and his court filing for 'rheumatic pain' is a masterclass in 19th-century legal DIY.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
One of the most remarkable pleadings ever brought to the office of the clerk of the superior court of King County was the answer of William Allen, filed in the divorce case of Mary Jessie Allen vs. William Allen. In her complaint, the wife had alleged that her husband, although a strong, healthy man, was lazy and compelled her to support them both by doing washing and ironings. Allen decided to forgo an attorney, spending a week in the clerk's office studying legal forms before filing his own response.
In his answer, Allen denied being shiftless, claiming instead that he had been suffering from 'rumatic palus in the back' since 1881, which worsened in Washington. He insisted that he was forced to treat himself with a patent medicine called 'Wm. Radam's Microbe Killer,' and that he was only now cured. He further claimed he had never deserted his wife, stating he had traveled to Montana to find better work for their future and had even attempted to send her money, which she refused. He ended his pleading with a prayer to the court: '1st for no dissolution of said marriage. 2nd for no alimony... 3rd for no costs. 4th for no other or furthur releiff of said Court.'
“That the defendant is and has not at all times been extra strong that the defendant has been subject to rumatio palus in the back since the fall of 1881.”
Allen's DIY legal filing mirrors the modern surge of pro se litigation in Washington courts, as skyrocketing costs make legal representation inaccessible for many. Even then, the tension between a spouse's economic survival and the realities of health and precarious employment was central to the Seattle courtroom.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.