The Divorce Wrangle That Nearly Jailed a Seattle Statesman
John Considine avoids six weeks in the county jail after posting a hefty bond in a high-stakes divorce contempt case.
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.
Statesman John W. Considine came very near going to jail yesterday. For about a month past, proceedings to punish him for contempt have been pending in the superior court. On Monday afternoon a bench warrant was obtained from Judge Langley by Mrs. Considine's attorney, but was not served until yesterday morning when Considine appeared at Sheriff Woolery’s office. Judge Langley sentenced him to six weeks in the county jail, or until the costs of the divorce suit and alimony were paid. Considine’s attorney gave notice of an appeal, sparking a legal debate on whether a commitment for contempt is appealable. Judge Langley ultimately ruled that since the contempt involved an order of court rather than an offense in the court’s presence, an appeal could be allowed. The judge set the bond at $1,700—$1,000 for the appeal and $700 for the alimony. John Schlesinger and T. B. Daly posted the bond, and Considine avoided immediate incarceration.
“Judge Langley ruled that, while there are some kinds of contempt which are summarily punished... in this case the contempt was committed by disobeying an order of the court.”
Divorce and alimony disputes remain a common feature of civil court dockets, though the threat of 'debtor's prison' via contempt of court is now strictly constrained. The power dynamic in this 1893 dispute over the husband's evasion of payments reflects historical struggles for economic agency during marital dissolution.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.