The Steel Divorce Trial: Infidelity, Money, and a Son in the Middle

The Steel divorce case, now on trial in a session of the equity department, occupied all of yesterday. The evidence was of a character to glue even the most casual spectators to their chairs, including about twenty women. The fight is hot on both sides, Mrs. Steel struggling for a divorce and a division of the property, her husband opposing it in the interest of their son, a young man some years old, located somewhere in Oregon.

The story of both the wife, given the day before, and the husband, who testified yesterday, forms a sad narrative of poverty, struggle and excessive hard work on the part of both in the early years of their marriage in order to make and save money. But, when made, the money only brought about a wreck of the happiness they had mutually enjoyed for years. The testimony of both shows that both were energetic and hard working and both made money, he seeking work in any capacity offering and she doing likewise in housework, each hoarding the savings and jointly investing them in the hope of enjoying a peaceful and happy old age.

The plaintiff yesterday closed her case. The defense opened its side with Mr. Steel, who was kept on the stand all afternoon until adjournment. His cross-examination will be resumed next Monday morning, to which time the trial was adjourned.

The first witness yesterday morning was Mrs. R. Davis, who testified that, after moving out of a house on Yesler Avenue in January 1892, she saw Mr. Steel there between 11 p.m. and 1 in the morning, prowling around and evidently there for no good.

Mrs. Almira McQuosten lodged in the same house occupied by Mrs. Steel, whom she had known since last June, and testified to the poverty-stricken condition of Mrs. Steel and the paucity of her furniture. Mrs. Jane Sullivan's testimony was to the same purport, and she added that Mr. Steel had told her that his wife was not good company for him, that she could neither play cards nor the piano, and that she could die as soon as she wanted to.

James Dugan was then put on the stand to testify to the value of property owned by the Steels. The Seattle property was worth about $30,000. The cross-examination developed that Dugan gave the valuation of the property set forth in the complaint, and that the estimates were based on Dugan's valuation. Dugan testified that he had something against Steel and had him arrested and put under bonds to keep the peace.

Mrs. Steel was recalled to testify in regard to taxes. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Steel opened the case for the defense. He said that when he first came into the United States from Canada with his wife in the sixties, they brought $1,000, which was invested in Kansas City property. This was sold at an advance and the proceeds reinvested, and the same process pursued over and over, each time increasing their holdings. He denied that he ever struck his wife, pulled a gun on her, or choked her. He had repeatedly asked her to discharge Dugan, which she refused to do. In 1902, about July 2, he saw them in a compromising position. A few days later Steel got a deed from his wife. When he told her what he had seen, she finally admitted it, but said he (Steel) should not mind Dugan, as other men had been intimate with her before Dugan. On one occasion Steel overheard Dugan upbraiding Mrs. Steel because she had kissed him, Steel, and had heard Dugan say: "I don't want you to do it again."

Relative to the wife's testimony that he had deprived her of furniture, Mr. Steel said that the furniture in question was in an empty house, which she had abandoned to move into a hotel, and that he had removed the furniture in order to rent the house. He denied ever questioning the paternity of his son. He had made repeated attempts to leave Seattle and go to Ottawa, Kan., or Montana; after the last trial he put money in Mr. Gilman's hands to provide her with means to get away from Dugan, but she would not go. Steel said he did not want a divorce, as he did not want the property divided on account of their son.