National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-11-15
CALLING A HALT.
The District not Divorce Market for other
Cities

Justice Macarthur in the Equity court yesterday
dismissed the bill for divorce brought by Il. Key
buchanan against his wife, Lucinda Buchanan.
Inc parties 10 the suit were married III the city OF
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania July 10, 1876. by Rev.
A. A. Wilets. aud lived together, according TO tho
petitioners statement until October H. 1876 when
be charges that she deserted him and has lived
apart from him ever since that time. The husband
came TO this city to reside April 10, 1877 and upon
Aprll ID, 1879, four days after the prescribed time
by the statute. the hill for descrtioii filed. The
deposition Of A. X. Ebcrhart of Philadelphia, on
behalf OF the husband, among other things states
That Mrs Buchanan resides with her brother at
NO. 1901 Green street Philadelphia. is in delicate
health. aud totally blind, and subject TO whms
and cnprieos aud a difficult person to live with.
The deponont then makes another affidavit In
which he states that Mrs Buchanan had not been
~ this District six months prior to April 1872 or
III inCt for the lat two years.
Justice Macarthur, IN passing the decree. give
the following opinion: The petition in this case
prnys for divorce on the ground Of dcsertion'
The portlc. were married in Philadelphia July 10,
1876, and lived together only for period OF three
mouths In that city when the alleged dcScrtion
s ep place The plaintiff ~ ihe following Ap5il,
expiration Of two years promptly filed this bill, TO
wt-on the 18th OF April 1879 The plaintiffs dcpo-
siiion Is not competent evidence, and the depo-
sitions Of his brother and Of William W Ward as
TO the contents of letters said to have been written
by plaintiffs wife ought to receive very little cor
sidemtiOn. The alleged loss of these letters is n
very suspicious circumstance for IL produced they
might explain away the parole evidence OF these
witnesses. The deposition of George G. Ellison re-.
ates to conversation with the defendant in
December, 1873, ut Philadelphia. The Revised
Statutes of the District Of Columbia section 737,
declares that admissions IN answer shall not lie
taken as proof The admissions not sworn to ana
not accompanied by any unequivocal act are open
to graver objections than those made In all answer,
and ought not ~ be received as evidence. They
are indications OF collision between the parties.
think II unsafe to rely upon them.
The deposition Of a. X. Ebcrhart amounts TO
nothing lie simply testified that the parties lived
apart for over two years, and he understood that
the defendant refused to live with the plaintiff.
This Is proof of inct going IN establish dcscrtion
This witness, however, states that the defendant is
in very delicate health and is totally blind. This
circumstances is revealed accidentally and does
not place this application IN very favorable light.
The parties were married In Pennsylvania, they
resided there. and the alleged desertion occurred
there The courts of that State are open TO the
complainant, and there the defendant can he
reached by process The District of Columbia
should not be made divorce market for other
Jurisdictions The bill must be dismissed.
- ~.