Four Lawyers Nearly Came to Blows Over a Seattle Divorce

The argument in the Steel divorce case began yesterday before a judge pro tem, with C. E. Patterson speaking for Mrs. Steel, the plaintiff. At one point it looked as though two of the attorneys, C. Gilman and C. F. Fairfield, would continue the argument with their fists. Mr. Patterson spoke all yesterday morning and half the afternoon, and because other attorneys had to be heard, the argument was expected to continue today.

Patterson scored Steel for his treatment of his wife and attacked the argument that Steel opposed the divorce because it would endanger the value of the property. The son, Patterson said, was a natural heir of the mother; if the property were divided, he would naturally receive more at his mother’s death than at his father’s. While Steel was making a fight to leave his property to his son, Patterson continued, he had not hesitated to drag the mother’s name through the mire and placard her as a vile woman, leaving that as a legacy to the son whose welfare he claimed to consider.

Reviewing the witnesses, Patterson referred bitterly to a witness named Dow, whom, he said, the prosecution had brought in at the tail end of the case and whom nobody knew. That was the signal for a passage at words that came very near ending in a passage at arms. Gilman interrupted to say that he knew Dow, a well-known contractor. Munday said he had never heard of Dow or seen him until he took the witness stand. Gilman retorted hotly that Munday had known Dow all his life. Munday jumped up and said he wished it distinctly understood that when he said he did not know Dow and had never seen him, he stated the truth and would allow no one to contradict him. Patterson agreed.

Gilman said he had no doubt Munday believed he was telling the truth, but if he reconsidered he would find that he did know Dow. Munday reiterated his statement and said he would have no contradiction of it. Patterson wanted no explanation; what they had said was the truth and admitted of no discussion. Gilman wanted it understood that he would make no explanation to anybody and would not retract anything. Patterson, considerably worked up, wanted to take him outside and settle it there. Gilman, equally pugnacious, said he would settle it not only with one of them but with both, outside, inside, or any other place.

Munday’s heat visibly increased. He jumped up and advanced on Gilman in a business-like, threatening manner, when Patterson turned and faced him too. Fairfield, Gilman’s associate, who had been enjoying the fun in a suppressed way, rose and ranged himself alongside his colleague, forming a battle array of two lawyers on each side, all gesticulating and talking at once and creating a scene suitable for any place but a courtroom.

The judge had been trying to attract attention by tapping the table. Clerk Hughes came with a twenty-pound paperweight, which he pounded to the damage of the desk, and between the two the noise finally checked the belligerent quartette. The four lawyers, evidently ashamed of themselves, quieted down, and the episode was mutually declared ended with no rancor remaining. During a recess the four sat outside together seemingly as friendly as if nothing had happened. Clerk Hughes announced that he had telephoned for the Fifth artillery to come on, but from present appearances thought it advisable to countermand the order. The argument was resumed and nothing further occurred to offend the dignity of the court.