The Wealthy Landowner and the Guardianship Fight
A judge rules that being a 'habitual drunkard' is not sufficient legal grounds to seize control of a man's assets, thwarting his children's attempt to secure their inheritance.
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.
Judge Lichtenberg of the superior court yesterday delivered an important ruling in a probate proceeding to determine whether Seymour Wetmore, accused by his own children of being a common drunkard, should be placed under guardianship. The court held that there is no law in this state authorizing the appointment of a guardian for such a person, and granted Wetmore's petition to discharge the guardian appointed last July. Wetmore, an early settler who holds valuable land along the Rainier Avenue electric railway, was sued by six of his children to manage his affairs. During testimony, Wetmore—who showed a vigorous mind despite admitting to drinking—claimed his children were attempting to tie up his property to secure their inheritance. The court agreed that under current statutes, habitual drunkenness does not equate to being 'incapable of conducting one's own affairs.'
“It is a trick too mean for a siwash, or even a siwash cur.”
This case echoes modern struggles over elder care, conservatorship, and the intersection of personal autonomy with family inheritance. The 'Rainier Avenue' land mentioned would become the heart of the Columbia City neighborhood, showing how early property stakes in Seattle set the stage for generational wealth—and conflict.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.