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

= nit u dissolution Of the contr,c,
when it is evident that tho partic
} cannot derive from it tho benefits 70
which it WAS instituted, and when in
stead OF being source Of the highcs
, pleasure and most enduring felicity
ii becomes the source Of tho dccpes
woe and misery" I Swifts System
191.
Whether the jurisdiction should be
extended in granting divorces riucu
10 mat'imonii beyond the causes prc
existing at marriage, and to adultery
and malicious dcscrtion subsequent
thereto, need not now be discussed
Up to this point, ut least, the judicial
tribunals Of most civilized countries
exercise jurisdiction.
! In this State heretofore, marrionc
( from any cause and under all circum.
stances, has been absolutely indissolu-
blc-thc Courts taking the ground
that the Legislature had not invested
them with power to declare divorce,
and have uniformly declined to cxcr-
else it. The Legislature has steadily.
refused to grant dissolution Of the
marriage Tie. There is, perhaps, 20
other civilized country, either .protes
tant or catholic, that has not made
some provision: either lcgisIativcly or
Judiclally, for dissoIving marriage for
adequate cause, except this State. In
England the Ecclesiastical Courts
grant divorces u menSa ct tAoyo. ard
the British Parliament a p;acu}o ,ani-
r'mo"". In Scotland ;hc marriage is
dissolved for adultery O. malicious
descrtion, by the Courts; and il the
States Of the American Union, the
same powers arc exercised bv mos;
Of The Courts for causes already
enumerated, and for other; not men
toned.
ln Rhame vs.. Rhamc, NcCor,i's C..
L. 197, Judge Nott, in !, bill filed foi.
alImony, admitted that, in England.
such cases belonged to the Ecclcsi.st:-
Cal Courts, but considered that uli,ao-
ny was al exception in this State By
he practice Of the Coart Of Equity, and
from necessity. and held that "tlc it,
RI diction OF the Court must be limited
to the allowing Of alimony ari to such
orders as are necessarily incident to
the ctltctual execution Of such 3 &c.
cree" again he says: Although
our Courts Of Equity lave not the
power to grant divorces, yet as the
two suhjccts-tivorcc and alinpny-
arc insepar"dIe companions in i;n.,l:tnd.
VIC must look to the causes Of dipo,cc
to ascertain the yronn,!; on which ali
mony will bc allowcd.'
In Pra,hcr VS.. Prathcr, 1 Dcss.. G.
X. III, i'll considering bill for aiino-
ny, Chas. DeSaussuro say: ".snd
this from the necessity OF the case.
and to redress an injury not other
wise rcmc'liablo-I allutlc to So ycrol
cases which were decided in this
Court some year; ;sincc.-cxprc:sl; on
the ground that no other tribrno,
c'uli sire redress and it would be un-
saemly and highly mischicvons if the
Court did not Interfere"
Chief Justice Dunkin, in the case Of
AatsIson VS.. Mattison, l Strobhart, c
X. 3S7, which was IL bill to declare q
nullity Of marriage, said "that there
was no distinction in such a bill and q
bill for divorce; that the Legislature
had not conferred any such iurisdic-
ton on the Court, and that there WAS
no inherent power in the Court to cx-
ercisc it." lie adopts the ruling of !
Judge Mott, that tho allowance Of
and incidental orders for car
rying it into effect, was properly cog
niza1lc by the Court of Equity from
g practice and necessity" but could not !
be extended to a divorce or declaring
q anarriagc null and void.
In all the cases in this State, iuris-
dlctlon in alimony is taken by the |
Court from necessity and the prac
tlcc Of the Court" There was no
' practice of the Court in such q case |
until necessity" induced its intro
ductlon, and therefore the only ground
for assuming jurisdiction was "ncccs- !
slty. The Court of Equity in this |
State takes jurisdiction in cases of ali
mony s'itAont any legislative uuthor;xa-
tion when such cases arc ooynizablc
alone in the Ecclesiastical Courts Of
because the Legislature Of
the State has not specially conferred |
jurisdiction on that Court to hear and
determine divorce cases!-Judgo Mott
says "divorce and alimony arc insppa-
'a'le companions in England" and yet |
assumed jurisdiction of tho one from
" necessity" and denies it to the other
Tor want Of legislative authority.
Does not the "necossity" to exercise |
the Jurisdiction to annul or dissolve n