Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-12-10

OiOVE IN regard 10 the application of Mary
Emma BROKER for a divorce from the bonds of
matrimOny, because OF alleged adultery on the
part OF her husband. Benz. g.. BROKER took
occasion to submit the following very Import-
ant observations regarding the construction to
be gwen 10 the statutes relating to the subject
OF divorces, and also 20 suggest certain rules
which should be observed in proceelingsfof
tins description. The Judge remarked Incl.
dentslly that he had consulted with Chief Jns
tice Cartier IN regard 20 the matter, and that he
pressed.
The Judge said: This Is an application for a
diNoree from the bonds of matrimony upon the
ground OF adultery Tin the Ian &c of the stat
uiei committed by the husband su bseduentIy TO
ms marriage with the complainant The re-
SPondent lnterp9ses no answer to the petition
OF the Wife, though IL appears by the papers
that counsel appeared in his behalf and cross
examined one or more witnesses produced and
sworn on behalf OF the complainant before the
examiner.
The act of Congress comforting jurisdiction
upon thls Court 10 grant divorces from the
bonds OF matrImony passed June 10, Is6U. (see
STATUTES at Large, vol. IL, D. So provided in
general terms, that applications for divorce
cor any cause) may ne made by petition,
specifying the cause therefor with certainty
The &C. furtker provides that a divorce rim
cUio r71frlRoHi from the bonds OF matrimony
may be granted in any OF the following cases:
lst VI here such marriage was contracted
whist either OF the parties thereto had a for
mer wife or husband living unless the former
marriage shall have been lawfully dissolved,
and no restraint shall have been enforced on
the party contracting such second marriage
I'd. Where such marriage was contracted
during the lunacy of either party. or where
inner party was mGtTl@oHidtly ineapacitated
"a. W hen either party has committed aduI-
tery during the marriage.
These are the only grounds upon which
OiNOrCe from the bonds OF matrimOny can be
granted by this court.
This act OF Congress does not, like the Iegis-
iatlon OF most OF the States of the Union, I'M
pose any disability upon the offending party
but leaves the guilty, we'll as the innocent
10 contract again the relation OF marriage; and
Sinee ITS passage we have already had the scan
uaIouS exhibition in one or more instances in
winch the udulterer has come into court, ac-
knoWIedged upon oath his crime, and con-
tracted second marriage before the ink was
scarcely dry upon the decree dissolying the
first.
make these remarks, not by way of COM
piaint against existing legislation, but simply
10 show how important deem II for this court
10 De yIgilant and careful lest its process be
used 10 subyert the spirit and policy Of the
act OF Congress, and break down all those Sc
Curltles and safeguards which in all well-rec-
ulated communities have been placed round
the marital relation.
The petition IN this case states with the re-
quisIte certainty the time and place of the COM
mission of the alleged offence. and vet perhaps
~ ought 70 be regarded as defective in not sta
ing the name OF the person with whom such
offence was committed. IL unable TO ascsr-
tam the name OF such person, the fact should
o. stated
I'd II should be aveIred in the petition that
since the discovery of the alleged adultery tn
complainant has not voluntarily cohabIted
with the respondent
Sd. IL should also be averred that the pc
ttion Is not filed by COLLISION with the re
spondent; and
4th. The petition should be verified by the
oath OF the complainant, 10 the effect that the
facts stated IN the petition upon her own
knowledge are true, and that the matters and
things therein stated upon information and be-
lief. she believes TO BE- true.
In looking through the evidence in this case,
md nc proof OF the marriage Of the parties
II IS stated in the petition that the parties were
married in philadelphia, Pa, and that q copy
OF the marriage certificate is filed with the
clerk OF this court; but the petition does not
Purport 10 be verified by oath, and il ii were,
DO not think would or ought to dispense with
proof OF marriage. 1 learn. however, that the
petition was in fact verified, but the jurat was
omitted TO be added by the clerk Of the court
In almost every tribunal having jurisdiction
or the subject of divorce, IL has been held that
preof OF the marriage was an indispensable
prerequisite 10 granting divorce from the
bonds OF matrimony. The act of Congress on
THIS subject hastily and crudely drawn, as il
manifestly Is, contains, however, the wise and
sanitary provision that mo judgment for a
divorce shall be rendered on default without
proof. nor shall any admission contained in
the answer be taken as proof or the facts
charged, but the same shall in all cases be
proved by other evidence"
The marriage contract has been regarded as
OF 60 great solemniIy in ali civilized countries
mat ITS dissolution has not usually been de-
creed for slight and trivial causes. The sacred
observance OF ITS oblig cations is almost the sole
guarantee OF the progress OF Christian cIvili-
ZdtlOn Hence the rule has almost universally
been observed that when a party seeks the aid
OF Court OF Equity % decree q dissolution of
sach contract the party com planning must not only
an The tiu OF petition, charge the ogeHSe tcttch Gy
t0'r '71d PrlmG tdcie, authorize decree for the
Hcf sought, out He9Gtire each and er.ry defense,
'rhich, y prored, you'd coRstrdiR Court Of Egui
~ 70 TsfbSe the relisf sought.
think IT by no means an unreasonable re-
quIrement that the complainant should verify
his or her s'aIement by oath, especially since 1t
a a z fra tn -
ulNorce the oath of the party is almost the only
seeariiy The Court can have against fraud or
imposition
Several important facts in this case, material
70 Hs proper disposition. are neither ayerred in
he petition or alluded TO in the proofs l need
mention but two. IL Is not averTed In the Pc
ution that after the discovery OF the adultery
OF the defendant by the complainant did not
voluntarily cohabIt with The defendant IL
me ono, upon no principles OF equity, hitherto
administered, can the complainant be entitled
divorce.
I'd. Ii is not averred In the petition that the
same was not filed In collision with the de-
fendant., If IL were, Court OF Equity would
spurn both parties from It's presence. The
rules OF pleading IN cases of divorce, very
SPr,i ,i from considerations OF public policy.
Gear NIUE or no analogy 70 those in ordinary
tNI actions. i have before stated what
tnlnk the true rule TO be
IN this case an order will be made allow
&c PtuIOner 10 amend her petition In the par
uchIafs before H. Btioned-the DetitIon as
amended to be verified by the oath of the pc
IN winch 10 answer such amended petition
after the same Is filed. IL such petition ba
amended, and an answer be filed either marty
may taSe such further proofs in the canse AZ
they shall be advised are material IL NO
answer is InterpOsed 70 the amended pstitin,
he complainant may take such further proofs
IN the case a she i advised the proofs airs,dy
taken n the case 70 stand as evidence on M,
n1al hearing.
lsCESDIAEY ATTKMPT-Loffg TuBbIin1-
saturday night aoout9a O'Clock, fire was dis
covered IN two rooms u the house owned by
Mr.. Henry Douglass, on q street north, be-
tween iith and 18th west Lieut.. Tst and
sergeant Pierce, OF the Second Ward. were
called uTon 20 examine the premises, and from
the statements OF Mrs. Bernard, who occ upies
the building az a boarding house, and Emma
NansAnt servant, II appeared that on going
up 10 her bed chamber. the servant discovered
hTe IN a wardrobe In one room. and a bed
burning IN another room. She. with Mrs Ber-
nsrc, eXiinguished the fire. The servant, upon
gong mp stairs the second time, sa W a man
VINO ran past her and cut her dress as he
passed jumped out OF the third-story to the
ToOf sdloiuIng. and from thence 10 the ground
and esesped. The officers thought the case so