The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1877-11-07

the grounds Of ncompatibility Of temper or differ
ent aims and objects IN life, etc.
STILL EASIER PROCESS.
But we find q sti more direct mode OF shuff
ling of matrimonial obhgauons, thus: Husband
and wife, both non-residents of the Territory,
and either Of them making complaint and swear
ing that the defendant has abandoned his or her
home. and fling such sworn statement without
any other corroborating evidence. can get the
decree granted the same day that the petition is
filed. As this may seem too incredible Tor be-
lief we will here cite several cases as examples
Of many:
FEW STARTLING SPECIMEN CASES.
Rose Barry vs. D4nuis Barry-Complaint 6ei
January 3. 1877. and sworn to 10 San francisco.
Decree granted the same day.
Dominick Morogh VS.. Josephine Morogh-
Complaint sworn TO in New York City, and filed
January 3. 1871 Decree granted the same day
Bentley Stevens vs.. Adeliue Stevens -Com-
plant sworn to in Chicago, and filed February
20, 1877 Decree granted the same day.
Robert F. Nrsbit VS.. Frances Nesbit-Com-
plant sworn to in Terre Haute, Indiana. and
filed February 20, 1877. Decree granted the
same day.
Alice Atwood VS. Nathaniel Atwood-Com-
plant sworn 10 in ST. Louis, aud filed April 10Th
Plaintiff swears that tue defendants last known
place of residence at sea. Decree granted
iva days after filing the application.
John B. Vail vs.. B. ID. VaIl.-Complain,
sworn to 10 New York, and filed April D, 1871
Last known place Of residence oi defendant was
in France. Decree granted April 9, 1877.
To further in- lance the fraudulent and nefari
Gus practice OF this divorce business, We would
cite the following Cases:
Helen Leonard applies for u divorce from Peter
Leo. ard Of Harrington, Canada files her com
plant 10 this Court swearing 10 il in Allen
county, Indiana asks thai as personal service
cannot be made upon defendant within the juns
dicton of this Court. that the Court direct thai
service be taken a Aforesaid. according TO Sec
| ton of the Utah statutes in reference 10 di
vorce. The decree was granted two days after
filing the petition.
| QUICK WORK.
The Committee then go on TO state the tim,
10 which one hundred consecutive cases wer'
each disposed Of In l6 of these the divorce
was granted on the same day the complaint wa:
flied In the other 81 cases the impatient plain
uffs had TO wait from two TO forty days befOr,
they could Obtain release from matrimonial bonds
| The Committee further report that this nefari
Gus business is on the increase. and that othe
| Probate Courts besides that OF Salt LAX,
County are engaged in it; that in a large mum
Der of cases the complaint and all the papers il
said cases are in the handwriting Of Elias Smith
presiding Judge of the Court wherein the case
are pending. showing the questionable proceed
| ings of Judge practising in his own Court.
The report concludes thus The development
made by your Committee in their investigation
fully indicate his honor, Chief j Justice SchaefrI
for his order enforcing the law relative To the in
specuon Of public records, aud furnish an expa
nation of the resistance of Judge Elias Smith an,
his clerk, d. Brookhult.