He Was Not Going to the Asylum: How an Olympia Guardianship Case Was Settled
Peterfield Turpin’s family asked the court for a guardian. Rumors flew that he would be committed and his estate seized. In open court, the parties explained—and settled.
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 matter of the application for the appointment of a guardian to Peterfield Turpin was satisfactorily settled today, without intervention of the court. W. F. Keady was appointed attorney in fact for Mr. Turpin, to take charge of and have general supervision over all his business affairs.
Col. Eddy moved to dismiss the petition for the appointment of a guardian on behalf of the petitioner, Mrs. Turpin. In doing so, he asked the permission of the court to make a few remarks, which was granted. He then stated that an erroneous impression had become prevalent among the people as to the object of the proceeding. That it was believed that the intention was to place Mr. Turpin in the asylum so that Mrs. Turpin or some other person might gain possession of his property and effects. He stated that the proceedings were not for any such purpose, as the petition itself would clearly show to any person who examined it. That the only purpose of the petitioner was to have some responsible person in the community appointed by the court to take charge of Mr. Turpin’s affairs and prevent sacrifices and waste of his income and estate, and to prevent designing persons from robbing him as has been shamelessly done in the recent past.
“Finally,” he said, “when a settlement was agreed upon, Mr. Turpin insisted that Mrs. Turpin be appointed to take charge of his affairs, but she, desiring to avoid censure and unjust criticism, refused to accept the trust and subject herself to such criticism. She expressed no other desire than that the court should appoint some responsible person to fill the place.”
After Colonel Eddy had finished, Judge Robinson from the bench stated in substance that from his long acquaintance with the petitioner, Mrs. Turpin, he felt justified in saying that she had taken these proceedings from the very best of motives, and with no intention to do wrong to any person. He also expressed gratification that the matter had been amicably adjusted outside of court.
“It was believed that the intention was to place Mr. Turpin in the asylum so that Mrs. Turpin or some other person might gain possession of his property and effects.”
Guardianship proceedings were public theater in 1891, and the fear of being declared incompetent—or of relatives circling an estate—has not disappeared. Modern Washington courts still wrestle with how to protect elders from exploitation without stripping them of autonomy.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.