The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1880-01-29

by its waters, which, if without mineral in
| greGients, are much purer than those OF the
Metropolis; or to enliyen the imagination
and improve the understanding by learning
| the associations of the place and reviving the
instructive history Of the past.
/ End Of Chapter vi
r-----> >--------
Virginia Divorce Case.
When we first saw the paragraph pub
lished in the Virginia papers, assuming to
give the gist of the opinion OF Judge An
derson in the Latham divorce case, we, on
the spur OF the moment, prepared harsh
criticism OF the monstrous doctrine it as.
serted. A second thought induced us to ex-
anime the case more fully. This developed
the fact that the quotation, which had been
circulated much to Judge Anderson's dis
credit, did him great injustice. We were 10
the act OF writing out fuller statement Of
the case as an act Of justice to Judge Ander-
son, when our eye fell upon the following
article in the Philadelphia Press, which we
insert, because it comes from representa-
tive Northern Republican paper. The cor
rection coming from that source will have
the more force, and have the further effect
OF showing to the people OF Virginia that
the Conservative Republicans OF that Sec
tion have no disposition to avail themselves
OF perverted statement of case to create
prejudice against the South. Without fully
concurring in the closing sentence we give
thearticle in full as we find it in the editorial
columns OF the Press
No doubt there is good deal of prejudice
against Republicans 10 Virginia, and they
have often been been unable to get Justice
in the courts, but the story which is going
the rounds Of the newspapers, to the effect
that Virginia Judge recently granted d.
vorce to a woman because her husband had
become Republican, is not true. The case
referred to (Latham vs. Latham) was decided
in the Court OF Appeals at the July term,
1878, and is given at length in the volume
OF the Virginia Reports go Grattan)
Mrs. Latham filed petition in the Cor
poration Court OF Lynchburg in 1876, pray
ing to be divorced from her husband on the
alleged ground of cruelty and desertion, but
her bill was subsequently amended SO as to
attracted a good deal of attention
at the time on account of the high
social position of the parties and the
very remarkable testimony submitted by
the complainant to sustain the charge of
''cruelty.''
The Corporation Court of Lynchburg re-
fused to grant the divorce, and an appeal
was taken to the Court of Appeals, where
the decree of the lower court, dismissing
Mrs. Latham's petition, was affirmed. Judge
Staples delivered the opinion of the court,
which is reported in full in 30th Grattan,
and is model of judicial accuracy and ele-
gance. Probably no defendant in divorce
suit ever came out of court with a better
character, Every allegation of cruelty and
unkindness made by his wife was complete
ly overthrow, and the Court declared that
the evidence showed him 20 be IA man of
excellent character, OF amiable temper and
unlmpeachabe Integrity In view of his
wife's infrmities of temper his forebearance
was remal kable. Detectives were put on
his track, and persistent efforts were made
to prove that he had been guilty of immoral
conduct, bnt they signally failed, Judge
Staples interpoates this comment into his
opinion: 81 think it is proper to say that
a'man who can pass through such an ordeal
| unscathed has shown correctness and pro-
priety Of department deserving at least some
notice and, consideration
The real truth of the case appears to be
that Mrs. Latham had great dislike for her
husbands mother and sisters, and this was
the beginning OF her matrimonial troubles.
Tier husband was an officer of the United
States Court, and this brought him into con.
tact with the prominent Virginia Republi.
cans. Being one of the 'unreconstructed, y
she despised all Republicans and took no
pains to conceal her contempt. Mr.. Latham
was Republican, however, at the time she
married. him, and she was not Ignorant OF
this fact. In her petition for a divorce she
charged chat ''among the acts OF cruelty
which characterized the earlier portion OF
her married life, she was required by her
husband before they went to Danvlle to con.
ceal her want OF sympathy with his political
course; that her obedience to his injunction
In this respect cat her off from all other
sympathy, and that she found herself alone
| with a him, social pariah."
| The Court Of Appeals not only summariiy
| dismissed this allegation IS affording nc
cause for a divorce even lit were true, but
Judge Staples went to the trouble Of show.
ing from the testimony Of the complainant
own witnesses that it was entirely false. She
was received in the highest social circles in
Danville, where she and her husband resided
during the first two years of their married
life, and subsequently in Lynchburg II
| was we'll known that she was not Repub
| lican. All the judges OF the Court OF Ap.
peals, except Judge Anderson, concurred in
the opinion that she was not entitled to a
| decree of separation; that she was not emit
| tied to.alimony; and that she was not entitled
to the custody of her son, who was foul
years old at the time this decision was made
/ In view Of the emphatic judgment passed
by the Virginia Court of Appeals n favor Of
| TakLc ~ s, to hn tfoIsf hat ct,>rv
| has been put in circulation, which does the
court great injustice. This misapprehensior
arose from this circumstances; The Virgins
Readjusters would like to get Judge Anderson
(who filed dissenting opinion liz this case
| off the bench. He is said to be in his dotage
and no longer fit to perform judicial service,
| A paragraph from his opinion in the Latham
case, delivered nearly two years ago, was
published to show that he Is not fit to be q
! Judge. Commenting on the allegation in
Mrs. Latham's petition, quoted above, Judge
Anderson said:
ssThe uice charged was not POLITICAL for
doubtless honorable and patriotic men are
Republicans; but the shock and modification
to her was to find that her husband had mol
been true: that he had deserted bis friends
with whom he had made common cause, and
with whom he had been confederated during
the war. and had gone over to the enemy
and Joined him in waging more cruel wal
against them than the war OF arms, whilst
arms remained. 1t was the perfidy-the
moral faint which attached to him, and
which would likely exclude him from the
best society Of the State,
Now, thrust. be- noted that even Judgs
j Anderson does not say that this, allegation
if proven, would be sufficient ground for 8
divorce. His object seemed to be to give
such an interpretation to the language usee
by the complainant as would justify vir-
pinia court in considering this charge wher
dealing with the general question OF "cruei'
% II II had been written by man in hi!
iotace. and il the Readjusters crowd Judge
Anderson off the bench they will perform {
.,,oru GOOD service to the State.