A Yesler Avenue Divorce Scandal Gets a Merciless Airing
Testimony closes in one of Seattle’s most notorious divorce cases, with Mary Steel cross-examined for hours and a money collector named Dugan on the defensive.
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.
The very notorious Steel divorce case has reached its end, at least so far as the taking of testimony is concerned. The last of the evidence was all in and closed at 6:30 last evening, leaving only the argument of the lawyers to be heard. Judge Battle postponed the hearing of the argument until next Monday, and perhaps Tuesday, business in Port Townsend, to which he returned last evening, being of a nature to detain him until Tuesday.
Yesterday was largely devoted to the examination of the plaintiff, Mary Steel. She was kept under a merciless cross-examination by Steel’s attorney from 9:30 in the morning until 3 o’clock in the afternoon. The various amounts of money she was in the habit of receiving from her correspondent were gone into minutely, and the questioning tended to confuse the old woman. It was her invariable habit to come home and tell the sums he collected. His commission on these collections was cents on the dollar. At no time did the rent amount exceed $150 a month, so his commissions were decidedly small, yet they represented his calling eight and nine times a month in order that he might earn his $3 or $4 commission.
When questioned whether she ever bought cigars from Dugan, she said no, but on one occasion she sold him a box of cigars for $2.50. She denied selling him more than one box, but when confronted with two receipts showing that she had purchased two boxes of cigars, she finally supposed that perhaps Dugan also got the second box. These cigar transactions occurred in 1891. She denied that Dugan ever smoked in her house. She would not admit that she and Dugan ever drank in the house together, but would not swear that they had not done so. She admitted that he had carried items to her Yesler Avenue house; also that on one occasion she had left a key where Dugan could find it, and when she returned home that night, between 9 and 10 o’clock, she found Dugan in the house.
Mrs. Steel tried to reconcile her contradictory statements in regard to Mrs. Collins, who had testified, but she failed to do so. She explained putting a curtain over the keyhole as a means of keeping out the draft, though the key was in the lock, and said that was her way of keeping off drafts. She explained Williams’ testimony about hearing a man leave her room at 4 in the morning by saying that one night about that time a man rang the door bell; she got up, went to the door and talked to him. It was some stranger inquiring for some one in the neighborhood. She could not remember the name inquired about. She was then asked if it was not true that she found fault with Steel for coming in late at night without announcing his coming on the ground that it frightened her, and she answered yes. She was cornered on this by being asked if she was so nervous and afraid of being alone at night, how was it that she would boldly go to the door at 1 in the morning, open it and deliberately talk to a stranger.
She said that two years before, when Steel accused her of intimacy with Dugan and said he saw her in bed with Dugan, she told him he lied. On July 6, 1892, when Steel left for Montana, she waited three days, then borrowed $50, on which she went to Montana to find how the property stood. She testified that she was not intimate with her neighbors, the Collinses, or ever visited them. She denied ever having had any trouble with Dowling, who testified to seeing Dugan leave her house at 4 in the morning. She denied having told Mrs. Gorman that a woman was foolish to live with only one man and that a married woman ought to go around and have some “fun.” She denied that she and Dugan ever occupied the same bed. She admitted that if a party had stood in the alley of her house on July 2, and the curtain of her room was raised, he could see her bed. She kept a light burning in her room, and if not there, usually in the adjoining room. She denied ever hearing Dugan find fault with her for kissing her own husband. The rest of her testimony was negative denial of the direct evidence of the defendant.
Mr. Dugan was put on the rack again and kept sweating for an hour. He was not as cool as Mrs. Steel and made a poor showing in his emphatic denials. He denied charges of adultery and intimacy with Mrs. Steel. The latest he was ever at her house was 10:30, and the latest he went there was 8 o’clock. He said he was a sort of nurse for Mrs. Steel; when he handled her money it was usually at her house. He had been there as often as three or four times a week, but had no recollection of being in the house alone with her for longer than an hour and a half. Dugan was not very certain about part of his testimony; he did not know whether he was there on the night of July 2, 1892, and did not think he was at Mrs. Steel’s house. He denied that any person ever took him for Steel, or called him by that name; never knew Dowling, who had seen a man leave Mrs. Steel’s house at 4 in the morning.
Mr. and Mrs. S. J. Collins, T. C. Collins, and Mrs. Gorman were put on by the attorney to prove that Mrs. Steel was a frequent visitor at Mrs. Collins’ almost daily and had taken meals with them, and had generally made herself at home there.
Both sides then rested, and Judge Battle adjourned court until 9:30 Monday morning, when he will listen to arguments of the lawyers, which are expected to last a day.
“She was kept under a merciless cross-examination by Steel’s attorney from 9:30 in the morning until 3 o’clock in the afternoon.”
Divorce testimony was front-page entertainment in 1893, with a woman’s reputation picked apart in public. The details around a Yesler Avenue house and borrowed travel money show how intimate financial dependence could become courtroom evidence—a dynamic that still shapes family law and public scandal.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.