The Divorce That Split Seattle Real Estate

Judge Alfred Battle, sitting as judge pro tem, rendered his decision yesterday in the famous Steel divorce case, which has been dragged through the courts for the past fourteen days, awarding Mrs. Steel a divorce and dividing the estate so that she gets all the Seattle property and Mr. Steel the Montana mining property and other minor holdings in this country and Canada.

Judge Battle said the evidence did not show that Mr. Steel had refused to support his wife, neither was it shown that Mrs. Steel had been guilty of adultery with James Dugan. But though it was proven that the couple could not live together on account of incompatibility, the divorce was granted and the property divided.

Judge Battle's decision was of considerable length, and he reviewed the whole case and commented upon the more important points brought out in the testimony. He related that the community property of the couple in Seattle was valued at $18,000, there being no incumbrance of any kind. The Montana property he valued at $15,300; Missouri property at $2,700, and property at New Westminster at $900. Thus the whole estate, from the judge's estimate, has a value of $41,900, which is quite a falling off from the sum in common repute, Mr. Steel being known as the 'Montana mining magnate.'

In rendering his decision Judge Battle said in part: 'The defendant charges the plaintiff with adultery with one James Dugan. I have given this charge a careful consideration and, applying to the facts of the case the rules of law as I understand them, the plaintiff is not guilty. I do find, however, that she has been guilty of indiscretion, seemingly thoughtless, and that both she and Mr. Dugan have been guilty of conduct which justified the defendant in becoming suspicious. But I cannot find from the testimony, and I don't believe from the testimony, that she has been guilty of adultery with this party.'

In the course of the trial it was hinted that Mr. Dugan had an eye on the Seattle property belonging to the Steel estate. Commenting on this the judge said: 'I think Mr. Steel had an idea that Mr. Dugan had in view this property, and I am led to that conclusion myself. It seems to me the numerous visits of Dugan to Mrs. Steel are more consistent with this theory than the one of adultery; that either Mr. Dugan possibly had in view the fact that these parties might some time accumulate in this city valuable property and that he, in either the sale, management or control of such property, might reap pecuniary benefit.'

'The only act of cruelty in this action which was not passed upon by Judge Hanford in former cases and which has occurred since, is the act of the defendant in having the plaintiff arrested on a false charge of larceny. It must be said to the credit of the defendant, however, that though living for about ten years apart and 2,000 miles from the plaintiff, during all this time he abundantly cared for her up to November 23, 1893. I don't think there has ever been any disposition of the defendant to deny the plaintiff proper support.'

'Now, if the decree of divorce were granted in this case, there would have to be a decree made looking toward the support of the plaintiff; that would give rise to further litigation in the future. It is impossible to regulate by an ironclad decree what shall be the amount of support the defendant shall furnish the plaintiff during the balance of her natural life. I think it is for the best interests of both parties, to save them future expense, future litigation, future trouble and future contentions, that they be divorced and this property be divided. In granting this divorce I do not find the defendant any more culpable than the plaintiff, so far as regards the grounds on which this decision is based. The plaintiff lives in Seattle and the defendant in Butte, Montana; hence I conclude and decree that the bonds of matrimony be dissolved and divorce granted the plaintiff, and that each party pay the costs of suit respectively by them incurred. The defendant is also directed to pay the plaintiff within sixty days the sum of $50 allowed by the court heretofore.'

In the course of his remarks Judge Battle commented on the present circumstances of the two parties to this action. He referred to the fact that the couple were married in the early '60s and said the evidence showed that at the time of the marriage Mr. Steel was seized of property which he subsequently sold for $4,000, while Mrs. Steel had neither money nor property; that for years both worked hard and their earnings were put together for the common benefit of both. The evidence also showed that only one child was born to the couple, a boy, Charles Steel, now long since past his majority, whose present home is in Portland.

Mr. Steel, Mrs. Steel and the array of attorneys on both sides were present during the rendering of the decision. Mrs. Steel and her attorneys were satisfied with the findings, but Mr. Steel was anything but pleased, and it is said he will appeal.