The Strange Legal Limbo of Marie Louise White
After the court previously ruled a marriage never occurred, the couple was remarried—only to file for divorce again.
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.
Marie Louise White, otherwise known as Mrs. John Cort, began suit for divorce yesterday in the superior court. The trials and tribulations of this couple have been frequently aired in the newspapers. The last suit between the parties was thrown out because it was proved that they had never been legally married. A few months ago, the parties were brought together and induced to become married for the sake of the innocent children. Since March 29, 1892, the date of the marriage, they have not lived together, and Mrs. Cort seeks a legal separation on the grounds of desertion and non-support. She alleges in her complaint that she has not seen the defendant but two or three times since their recent marriage and then he only took the time in an attempt to convince her that she was not a proper person to care for the children.
“The trials and tribulations of this couple have been frequently aired in the newspapers.”
Public fascination with the private domestic entanglements of prominent figures is a hallmark of Seattle's press that has never truly faded. The 1892 legal struggle over custody and the legitimacy of the union mirrors the modern tension between sensationalized reporting and the very real human costs of family law disputes.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.