A Revolver at Her Ear: Mary Steel's Third Fight for a Divorce

A special session of the equity department was commenced in the library room of the courthouse yesterday morning with Judge pro tem Alfred Battle presiding for the purpose of trying the divorce case of Mrs. Mary Steel against her husband, David H. Steel, on the ground of a series of cruelties covering a period of years.

Considerable community property is involved in the suit and Mrs. Steel is anxious to be freed from him and to have her share of the property, while the husband objects to her having a divorce, alleging that a division of the property will lessen the inheritance of the only child, the issue of their marriage. Mr. Steel has been living in Montana for many years and was reputed to be wealthy in mines and other property, though the showing made by the wife in her complaint places the value of all the property in which each and both have a legal holding at only $49,000.

The trial of the case promises to be a long one, if yesterday's legal struggle may be used as an index. Both sides have evidently determined on a strong fight, and Mr. Steel appeared yesterday with two of the most prominent law firms in the city to represent his interests, while the wife came supported by two equally strong legal firms. Every point on which a legal technicality will stick is being used by both sides, and Judge Battle was kept busy denying and sustaining objections and noting exceptions.

The entire day was consumed in fighting legal questions and hearing the evidence of Mrs. Steel and one other witness, N. H. Hamilton, a paperhanger. Mrs. Steel was on the witness stand all day up to 4 o'clock and gave a woeful picture of her marital relations. This is the third suit that she has brought to secure a divorce, the two other suits going against her.

Her testimony developed that she is 53 years old, and sick and infirm as the result of her husband's treatment. They were married February 21, 1865, at Brockville, Canada, and only one child, Charles Steel, is the issue. By their joint efforts they acquired, since their marriage, property valued at $49,000, described as follows: the east one-fourth of lots 1 and 2 of block number 36, D. S. Maynard's plat of the city, the legal title of which is in her name; valued at $6,000, and of a rental value of $70 a month; lot 5, block 20, in A. A. Denny's addition to Seattle, the legal title of which is in her name, and valued at $8,000, with a rental value of $10 a month; lot 12, block 58, of D. T. Denny's park addition to Seattle, the legal title of which is in her name, valued at $2,000, and having a rental value of $10 a month, the property being encumbered with a $1,000 mortgage; lot 9, block 11, West Seattle's first plat, the legal title of which is in her name, valued at $100, unimproved, of no rental value; lot 11, block 12, of Foster & Leggat addition to the townsite of Butte, Mont., the legal title to which is in her name, valued at $2,000 and of a rental value of $25 a month; lot 30, block 28, in Butte, Mont., the legal title of which is in her name, valued at $10,000, with a rental value of $100 a month; the west half of lots 10, 11 and 12, of block 63, in Butte, Mont., the legal title to which is in his name, valued at $5,000, and of a rental value of $50 a month; south half of lot 218, in block 68, in McGee's addition to Kansas City, Mo., the legal title of which is in his name, valued at $3,000, with a rental value of $25 a month; twenty-seven acres in New Westminster district, British Columbia, the legal title of which is in his name, valued at $300, unimproved and of no rental value. In addition to these encumbrances there is a judgment in the superior court against the defendant for $600, which is a lien on all the real estate.

The total value of all the property over the liens is $49,000, with a rental value of $400 a month. In January, 1893, the two agreed in writing that she should control the Seattle property and he all the rest.

Last November she made another effort to secure a divorce and failed, but secured a court order determining the ownership between the two of all the property. Since that time, however, her husband has assumed control of all the property and appointed agents to collect rents, which he kept for his own use and to her entire neglect, and then left Seattle, keeping his whereabouts unknown to her. She alleges that he not only refused to let her have anything to do with the collecting of rents, but took away her furniture and refused to make any provision for her maintenance unless she agreed to relinquish to him all of her interests in the property. The alleged acts of cruelty were the result of her refusing to comply with his requests to relinquish her share in the property.

She recited the care she took of the property then in her possession previous to last November, making improvements, paying taxes, assessments, repairs, interest on mortgages and building two houses. Bills covering these outlays were introduced in evidence; also a statement of the amount of money she had received from her husband covering the many years of their separation, he in Seattle and she in Butte. The amounts received from him aggregate between $2,000 and $3,000, and were used by her in liquidating many of the bills she offered in evidence. She stated that, after collecting the rents and paying all the bills, she would be left with only about $10 a month while he was in Montana, and refused to send her any more money.

He would almost always come to Seattle 'dead broke,' and she would have to give him some money with which to get back to Montana, and even to buy his clothes. He would keep her in a constant state of fear, subjecting her to petty annoyances, and insisted on her keeping a strict account of every cent spent, even to postage stamps, and finding fault with her because she used too many of them, telling her that she should write fewer letters and not be so extravagant. While in Seattle, he would subject her to all sorts of indignities. He had once choked her and threatened to kill her if she did not stop trying to get a divorce; at the time the child was born he assaulted her grossly, accused her of infidelity with Dougan, a man she had employed as agent, whom she discharged at her husband's request, and who was subsequently re-employed at the husband's request. On one occasion he told her he was going back to Montana, and bade her good-bye after she had put up a lunch for him. Instead of going away he returned to the house late in the night, and as she was very timid and did not know who it was she refused to open the door. He then burst the door open and rushed in with a revolver, which he shoved in her ear, threatening to kill her. She also alleged that he had got men who would swear that they had seen her with Dougan. Among other personal indignities he had accused her of larceny before third parties and tried to secure her arrest.

Mrs. Steel was pretty firm on cross-examination, though her statement of cash received from her husband did not quite tally with the receipts which he had and which were introduced. She said: 'I want a divorce and the property that justly belongs to me and which I helped to earn. I am afraid of my life. He has threatened my life over and over and I cannot possibly live with him. He has sworn that he would kill me and he has told me that he had hired people to hound me.'

N. H. Hamilton, a paperhanger, testified that on a certain occasion Steel had come to him asking him if he would prosecute Mrs. Steel for stealing some tools that Hamilton had lost in one of the houses when doing some paperhanging. Steel told Hamilton that he wanted to show her up in a bad light for the purpose of bringing a suit against her in order to get possession of all property now in her name. Steel agreed that if he (Hamilton) would start the suit for larceny he would see that he got her to 'pony up $200,' which she would do rather than be prosecuted. Steel also told Hamilton, among other things, Mrs. Steel was a bad woman and that she and Dougan had been living as man and wife for the last seven years.

The husband, in his defense, will attempt to show that he has allowed his wife monthly sums ranging from $80 to $145, and accuses her of acts of infidelity. In spite of this he does not want her to have a divorce because he is anxious to preserve the property intact for the child. The case will be resumed this morning, and promises to last several days.