Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-02-04
THE REV. JAMES.
His Wife Gets a Decree of
Divorce from Him.
THE SEXUAL THEORIsT BEATEN
judge Clark Grants Mrs. James, of
Long Beach, an Absolute
Decree of Divorce.


Decree of Divorce.
The sensational divorce suit of James
vs., James is too fresh in the minds of the
people to demand being gone over in its
details. For a month past perhaps
Judge Clark has had the matter of grant
ing divorce to Mrs. James under
consideration. Yesterday decision was
handed down which grants the decree.
1t is as follows:
This is an action for divorce. The
principal question is whether the court
erred in refusing to grant defendants
motion for o continuance. Ii the ruling
upon that motion was not error 1t would
seem to be clear that plaintiff is entitled
to Judgment as prayed for. Counsel
for plaintiff in framing his original com
plant evidently thought that he was to
obtain default judgment, and probably
wishing to avoid scandal and to relieve
his client from testifying to disagreesble
facts in court, alleged part only of the
facts constituting the cause OF action.
This case is not infrequent and is not to
be commended. One seeking the aid of
the courts to dissolve the bonds of matri-
mony should allow no false sense OF
delicacy or modesty to prevent him or
her from alleging the facts constituting
the cause of action, in their naked verify.
Plaintiff was disappointed in obtaining
her default judgment. The defendant
appeared and answered, denying the
allegations of the complaint and plead
ing a recriminatory defense, alleging
adultery on the part of plaintiff. De-
fendant also filed cross-complaint,
praying for divorce from plaintiff. On
the day on which the cause was set for
trial plaintiffs time to plead to said
crose. complaint had not expired. Coun-
sci upon both sides then stipulated that
the case might proceed to trial as though
an answer had been filed by plaintiff to
the cross complaint.
First, denying the allegations thereof; !;
second, pleading the statute of limita.
tions; third, pleading conformation /;
fourth, pleading any matter competent
as recriminatory defense.
This was loose stipulation, but it has
an important bearing upon the position
afterwards assumed by defendants coun
sci, ie.. that they were surprised by the
order of the Court granting plaintiff g
motion to amend her complaint and re-
fusing to grant defendants motion for
continuance.
After the reading of the pleadings,
plaintiff Is counsel made a preliminary
statement of his line of proof. He stated
that he should introduce evidence tend.
ing to prove the facts alleged in the COM
plant, and also such course of conduct
on the part Of the defendant as to cause
great mental suffering on the part of the
wife, and which would undoubtedly con-
stitute extreme cruelty, as that term is
used in Civil Code, Sec. ga. The facts
which counsel stated that ne should
prove: beyond those alleged in the COM
plant, were in substance that the de-
fendant had allowed and encouraged
promiscuous sexual intercourse at their
home that he had permitted and en-
coursged his cousin, young man, and
his sister, a young woman, while resid
ing with plaintiff and defendant, to oc-
cupy the same bed; that the defendant
entertained, or pretended to en-
tertain, advocate and practice
peculiar doctrine Of the relations
of the sexes-a doctrine 80 at odds
with the experience, notions and GUS
toms of society that for husband to ad-
vocate or practice it would necessarily
cause wife great mental anguish. The
evidence corresponded in substance with
the statement of counsel and the allega-
tions of the complaint. No objection was
made to it's introduction, or to the intro
duction of any part of it, by defendants
counsel, upon the ground that it did not
correspond with the allegations of the
complaint. When plaintiff rested, the
defendant moved for non-suit, which
motion was denied. Plaintiff moved the
coart for leave to amend his complaint
to correspond with the proofs, and the
motion was granted. The defendant
then moved for continuance, and upon
the refusal of the court to grant the mo-
ton, refused to introduce any evidence
to contradict the testimony of plaintiff
and refused to proceed further with the
case.
A motion for continuance is addressed
to the sound discretion of the court. l
do not think that there has been an abuse
of discretion in this instance. The fact
that DEFENDANTS ursel stipulated that
the case might proceed to trial upon the
theory that the plaintiff had fled an
answer to the cross complaint, setting
forth recriminatory defense the fact
that he allowed the testimony tending to
prove the facts not alleged in the original
complaint to be introduced without OBJ
lection upon that ground, after having
heard the opening statement of plaintiff e
counsel, negatives any idea of surprise
moreover, no showing upon the motion
for continuance was made, as required
by G. G. P, Sec. 595.
Counsel for defendant urges that the
prayer of plaintiffs complaint should be
denied because of the absence of corrob-
Grating testimony.
Civil Code, section 1870, reads "No
divorce can be granted upon the default
OF the defendant, or upon the;uncorrobor.
ated statement, admission or testimony
of the parties" etc. 1t must be admit.
ted that the corroborating testimony in
the case is weak, and it is perhaps doubt.
full if the point is not we'll taken. The
case is one, however, that demands lib
eral construction. The reason OF section
130 supra is plain. It's purpose is to pre-
vent collusion and consent divorces"
AS was said by the Supreme Court in
McBlain Va. McBlain, n CAL, 500: 1.-The
parties to the action are not the only peo-
pie interested in the result of every suit
for divorce; the policy and the letter Of