Abbeville press. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1860-1869, 1869-09-03

'"''''e i'''' '''h'"i " no SHARED his bee
and received his attentions, while IN,
uno"ending vito received the crumbs
and suflcrcd the ind;gnitics and obus,
heaped on her ',y the f:.ithlcss husl,au,
land his degraded mistress Smell
were substantially the facts in the cas;
OF Jelincan vs.. Jolinean, = Dcss.. f. r
1'' ana the Court, i'll The graphic Ian
gnaSc oi Bishop on Divorce and Mar
rage 2sS, refused "to sever the Twin.
body from the putrid carcass" and
exhausted the powers of the tribnuo,
by dccrec'ling, simply, that tic hus.
band should maintain the wife Le had
so s!l"mclessly wronycd
Chanccilor Kent, in an able opiricr
uci''ercd Ill the case of Wightman va.
"'shtman, I Johnston, c. Il. 3l3.
reaches conclusion exactly the re.
verse Of that decided by the Corr. in
this State. lie holds That no lerisl.-
i've anthorilyis needed to confer iu,is-
olc''on on Tic Courts Of Equity in d.
'orco cases-that the power in the
court Is Inherent. IIc says: aAll
matrimonial and other causes Of Ec-
cleslaslIcal cogii"ancc belonged. nri.y;;.
hal!y to the temporal courts; and
when the spiritual courts cease thc
coSnlZancc OF such cases, it wou!J
seem, as Of course, TO revert baaL "a
laJs tribunals. Divorces O. riucvzo
says Lord Coke, ar cau&a n.ctvs. corsa
"W''''''ts ca"sa coas nyuiaitutcs, DC.
''e%e causes, and that Of lunacy, arc
""' within thc Statute (N. Y.l ciyior
70 IRIS Court .:uri:;!ic,i3" concrrDin~ -
':!'orces. notwithstanding th". fact.
th" learned Chancellor SAYS, that u,c
Court OF i.lai:y sis co,npctcnt. no,
merely "''iatara!y, lat bj- q suit in,;;-
tI;"d directly and for tic sole nu;.-
pose: TO pronounce Il divorce in such
eases"
hateTcr opinion may be enter
taiHcd Of the sonndnrss OF the iud;cial
y
decisions, or the practice Of the
Courts iii this State, Oh divorce here
t"'ure, Eli doubt is now removed h,.
IN" explicit language Of the New Con-
st'luiion. Article ", Section Il.
provides that ";hc Courts Of Common
iie"s :E;''l nave exclusive Jurisdiction
III ali cases Of DIVORCE" &c.; and i,
sec II, cit ss:"'i have Jurisdiction in
a!I h";t"r* Of Equity" 81. Article
H. Section .: p"ovitl"s that "d:y.,r,r,
from the bonds Of matr:mory shall
not be allowed bat by the iu,,ymcut
~ co"rt, rs shall be prescribed Ly
law" 1t has been suggested that This
clause restraints the courts from cxcr-
clsin5 the jurisdiction Conferred in
tic 1uHrth article until the General
As*c"b'ySl'n!' by statute prescribe the
c"'lsr' respectively: for partial and
entire divorces and the rules ayd rr,c.
tlcc in the co"rt to regulate the sor,c
II hereafter" had been inserted in
the l;;ttcr clause of the section so ~
10 read las shall herc!tler be prescribed
by law sacl4 construction MIGHT have
been admissible but the language used
lii constitution, which must define
general propositions, embraces tho
existing laws as we'll as amendments
and notifications hereafter to he !
made by thc Legislature. The object
OF this section, when asccrta;ncd will !!
remove I'll doubt Us to its proper con- !
structlon. The convention framipu
the constitution, I'ro;iting by the cx- |
pcr'ence OF other States, where Lcgis- !
lative divorces have been granted, and
where caprice, lavoritism and impor- :
lunlty controlled the enactment in
disregard Of all general principles Of
y" ana oitcntimes totally inconsist- |
cnt with the previous acts Of the same
body, intended TO prohibit all divorces
by the LrSi:!aturc-coniidins the !
power exclusively in the court; which
would be bound to decide such eases
contormably to law and not by Lcei.. !!
Fat'vc caprice. If the phrascoIogy of
Che section had been Gas now prc. !
scribcd by law" it would have pre- !.
cluded the Legislature from amend !
mcnts in tho future, if "as may here
after be prescribed by law" " it would
have excluded the enforcement Of the !
existing law by the courts and there. !
oy defeated the grant of jurisdiction
in the fourth article. Tho |
word claw " in the section embraces
ecclesiastical and common law as well !
rs statute law. If the section sbould
be construed to refer alone to law
hereafter to be enacted by the Lcgis.
laturc it excludes all cxccpt statntc
law The ph:ascology covers what
was intended by the convention that
the courts in determining divorce
cases should be governed by tho exist |
ing common law and such etatutc !
laws rs may hereafter be enacted.
Tho phrase could not, ba constr,.tod