The Architect and the Common Law Wife
A breach-of-promise suit spills messy details of a hidden life, with a prominent architect claiming his former partner was merely a paid mistress.
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 suit of Mary H. Smith against E. H. Fisher, a well-known architect, for damages for breach of promise, is on trial in Judge Osborn's court. Plaintiff claims that she and the defendant entered into a common-law marriage in Colorado, agreeing to live together as husband and wife. She states that for five years they traveled between Denver, Butte, Victoria, and Port Townsend, living as a married couple. However, when they arrived in Washington state, the defendant allegedly refused to formalize the marriage, claiming it would complicate his business affairs. After the Supreme Court of Washington ruled common-law marriages invalid, the defendant married another woman. Fisher’s defense is that Miss Smith was his mistress, claiming she was a woman of 'unchaste life' prior to their meeting. He contends he paid her for their relations and that he eventually paid her to keep the peace and buy a release from any claims.
“The defendant held plaintiff out as his wife, and during all this time she was a kind, indulgent and affectionate wife to defendant.”
This case highlights the fragility of relationship rights in 1890s Washington, especially after state courts invalidated common-law unions. The legal battle reflects the gendered power dynamics of the era, where a woman's claims to a domestic partnership could be dismissed by labeling her with the stigmatized title of 'mistress.'
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.