Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-02-08
DIVORCES .lN ENGLAND.
The Number of Suits Small because tn,
Expenses Are So Heavy.

The Number of Suits Small because the
Expenses Are So Heavy.
London Correspondence Hartford Times.
Mr.. Charles Russell, who defended
O'Donnell, is in clover just now. Be-
sides the 1000 guineas he got with his
brief in that ease, he received $50
guineas each in two other cases. This
aggregates something like $4,000, a
sugar-plum that is not often picked up
for two or thres weeks work; and this
does not include refreshers. But law
yers' fees are climbing up here ut an
amazing rate. Three hundred guineas
used to- be considered the outside figure
for the best man Mt the bar; now the
big -bugs would turn up their noses at
that sum. The other expenses con-
neeted with litigation In England are
equally high. Justice may be had
here, unquestionably and it Is not to
be bought. Nevertheless, in many
cases il takes an awful pile of money
to secure IL. A stranger Is struck with
the small number of divorce suits that
come before the English courts, but
he will make IA great mistake If he in
fers from this that connubial infelicity
is uncommon. The real reason Is, d.
vorces come SO high that none but the
wealthy dare aspire to them. Apropos
of this, | recall what was perhaps one
of the wittiest speeches ever delivered
from the English bench. A poor man
was convicted of bigamy, and, on be-
ing asked why Judgment should not
be passed .npon him according to law,
he replied that his wife had eloped
with hawker five years before, and
he had not seen her since, so last win
ter he had thought IL quite permissible
to marry again. To this Mr.. Justice
Kaule replied ms follows: III
will tell you what you ought To
have done, and If you say you did not
know, must tell you the law conclu.
sively presumes you did. You ought
to have instructed your attorney to
bring an action against the hawker for
criminal conversation with your wife
That would have cost you about .fl00
$500. When you had recovered sub
stantial damages against the hawker,
YOU could have instructed your proc
tor to sue In the ecclesiastical courts |
for IA divorce q DienSd CT WOrO. That |
would have cost you goo to G30O |
more. When you had obtained di-
vorce a DieaSa CT MorO, you !
would have had to appear
by counsel before the house of
lords for "a divorce a uiacatolmdtri.
.aonii. The bill might have been OPP
posed in all its stages in both houses of
and altogether you would
have had to spend about eI,000 or
eli 200. You will probably tell me
That you never had |, 600 farthings of |
your own In the world, but, prisoner,
that makes no difference. Sitting
here as a British judge, IL Is my duty
10 tell you that this is not a country In
which there Is one law for the rich
and another for the poor"
To show his sense Of the heinous-
ness of the crime, the learned justice
the economical prisoner TO
for the term Of one day.
This was some years ago. The pro-
cess of getting divorced Is little more
simple now, and little less costly.
Even yet, however. none venture to
sue for this privilege but those having
, long purse; and, probably, the fact
hat nearly all the divorces that are
sought concern people in high life Is
the reason why superficial observers
rush to the conclusion that there Is
more immortality among this class
han among the poor.