, 1873-08-31

which In tolerated has become 30 common and
familiar that tho most barofaocd frauds nre por-
petratod either without attracting any nttontion
whnteyer or Without stimulating tho Judgoa to
tako any action toward rofornl. Tho facility with
which hfraudulonti divorces aro hurried through tho
oourss partly tic result Of too gonoral astatuto
and partly Of tho lax practice Of treating this
claas Of casos which tho Judges havo acquired On
account Of tho largo number tint como boforo
thonl. The Il1inoia statute provides as regular
causes Of divorce Auditory, impotence, bigamy,
doacrtion, extromc and repeated cruelty, habitual
drunkenness, conviction for felony. But, In nd
aision to thoso prcucribcd canaos, the Court has
tho broad latitude to grant divorces on any other
ground whioh 1t shnll doom sufficient, Several
othor States hnYo similar laws. Tho State Of
Connecticut givcs tho aame latitude to Judges.
Tho Slate OF kentucky allows diYorces for oil
the aforementioned Causes, except adultery. h
trial by jury ta prescribed in this State
only IN those caaoa whom tho defendant
appears and denies the chargoa in tho COM
plainants petition. Divorces OF fraudulent
nature, us mastcr Of course, noyor como to
trial by jury. It IL tho practice Of our local
courts to rotor all divorce cascs that do not re-
qniro srial by jury to G aTastor in Chanccry,
who very rarely fails to report III favor Of de-
cree, which. aa rule. is then granted without
further ceremony. Tho general charscter Of
these trials before Master in Chancory may bo
irfaY 4l,n nafr, L.
dlsorce-shystor proBoeutes moro than half tho
divorce business in Chicago. which turns out IN
average Of two divorces a day.
There are two waya Of procuring fraudulent
divorces, viz: By publication and by colIusion.
Tho first process is tho safcr, but It requires a
longer timo than tho other. Tho party desiring
divorce makes affidavit that tho tlofoudaut il a
non-rosdent, and tho usual ploa is
that OF dcaortion. Az publication in any
newspaper in tho county auhices, an
obscure journal is chosen, tho ono 1oast
1ikoly to bo seon by tho other party. Whom tho
requisite time las olapsed, tho complainant ap-
pears, giyos Ills evidence as 10 dcaertion, and
produces q witness to testify to tlo Bamo fact.
Tho Mastcr then reports fayorably, and Ill nb-
aolute decroo is granted. In tho othor class
Of fraudulent divorces, both parties appoar,
through their attorneys, and the defendant
makes confession Of tho charges alleged In
tho bill. Tho statute particularly enjoins tho
Court to guard ngatnHt collusjon in this claas OF
casos. but tho practice OF referring casos to
Masters in Chancory laa considerably diminished
tho value Of the safeguard. Tho statute Rlso
proHcrlDes that desortion must DO wllful abHenco
without just cause for two years that laDitual
drunkannaaa must oxtonl over tho Harno length
Of timo mud that thero must bo bona Jflc
reBlonco Of one year TO ontitlo complainant to
q docroo. But it is oy1dont that thoro in small
pains to ASCERTAIN whether tho affidavit nf the
complainant upon this point is true or false.
Tho instances Of fraud that como to light from
time to timo prove TINT those which do not como
to light must DO worry numerous when there is
80 much laxity In tho practice. Thore are, jnRt
now, two caaoa In tho courts, ono Of which hes
boon published md tho other not illustrating
both plasos OF fraudulent divorce. In one, the
| complainant appeared and mado affidavit that his
| wifo had troated him cruelty and finally
| deserted him. md Tint ho WIS ignorant OF
! herplaco Of residence. Il decroo Of divorce wa:
| granted in duo tino, and D Couple Of days lato1
the wifo appeared, having then heard Of tho cast
for tho fiEst time. Her place Of rosidouco Wal
| perfectly we'll known to tho complainant aa sh'
| had not changed it, and 1t was lo--and not eh
who was the desertor. In another caHo, tn
attorneys on both sides put in an appearance
tho bill waa brought il tho wifo's namo; til
husband eonfeased tho charges mado againa
him, aud q decroo waB granted t.
tho wifo. Now tho vito turns up anl Bays thu
aho mover Ind any knowledge of the proceeding
and bad never authorized my ono to apply for
| divorce on hor part. It is spid that tho huaban
had, nome timo previously, induced LIS wife
convey to him some separate property, which Ii
disposed Of. Ho tlon wanted divorce, and RI
sorted to this meanH to procure it. If tho cas
il correctly stated, thoro must hayo beon fraudr
iont co]}usion between tho attorneys On bot
sidos, 1t 1t did not extend further.
l AAo SAAtA1t HilA AAlo4!oA bAA6eH CHII uu btiul
thing toward correcting tho abuses Of tho diyore
practice by inatituting moro rigid inspoctio
OF the Masters' reports. Judge Farweu acom
to properly appreciate tho opportunities +,
fraud wlcl, the practice affords. Tho occasi.n.
al Withholding OF a decree for additional evi
denco In casos tint hayo suspicious 4spoci
would do much to check the abuses The
Judges could also contribute something to the
information Of parties who arc apt o bo d.
vorced without their knowledge by taclining tc
naako nh immediate roferonco tc tho Alas,
tor in Ohancory. II tho papcr woro thus
filed regularly in tho Court f'r aomo time
previous to n reference, tho reyartors for the
daily papers would chronicle t,a caaea, 90 tha1
thcre would 10 talror notice to abRont dofonl
anita than they now get in 40 regular form oi
publication In some obsclrs weekly paper. The