The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-18
THE DIVORCE MILL.
oh;eetions to Informalities
Made by the State.
r,1r COURT ovERRuLEs THEM.
,s.rpsy Mcbride Tries to stop the
mn wheel-vaiieur Case with
he Jury-The Blotter

An unusual Ieotulo oi tHc P'oSeeu"kS
&, - divorce court yesterday was the IN
:..,v,nt;on Of the state in the undefended
s,..,ee proceedings that come up before
80 Langley weekly. Three cases came
-. e hearing. all undefended except by
;s.;1taut Prosecuting Attorney Mcbride
S.. ,he case of Burdick vs.. Burdick.
+ fnis case was an application for divorce
ta,C n. Burdick against his wife, Kate
is,,diek. on charges OF desertion and
..s,ltery. committed while the couple were
E.sd,ae At Kirkland. When the case was
ssll.d Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Nc
A,-de arose and stated that he wished the
4x~ continued. as he had objections to
l-,te TO the granting of the decree. Mr..
McBride then took the position that in di-
syre proceedings too much laxity in
.ssdines and formal proceedings had
ken allowed to pass unquestioned. The
i,s.s. be contended. had right to require
AIT Ill proceedings in divorce cases
t.ould be governed as strictly as in other
Sys ss many instances might arise
tasre serious damage would be done il a
dssse OF divorcc was subsequently reversed
4, account of the informaiity of any one
the proceedings. This objection, he
fs;ntained, was strengthened by the in
Sr.st of the state in such cases on the
s,sunds of public policy and morality.
h. point was not that divorces were
ksased when the evidence would not jus.
~ decree, but that undefended divorces
kstr often granted when the pleadings
vGsld not have been allowed to pass un-
akeytioued had the defendant been repre-
stated
THE court decided not to grant contin-
s:.see and Mr.. Mcbride then moved to
ssike the complaint from the files because
rh sfIidavit had been flied, except on in
fyma.ion and belief; that personal service
eea.d not have been had upon the defend
o., within the county of King; and also
ttss the case had only been verified upon
kSarmaton and belief. Both these mo-
tEas were overruled by the court and ex-
"a lions we're taken.
i demurrer was then made to each
es4ss Of action set forth in the complaint,
st.she grounds that there was no allega-
tik, that the adultery had not been con-
dssd. or that the desertion had been
against the consent Of the plaintiff. These
dsssurrers we're overruled, and again ex-
ees;lons were taken to the rulings.
FINALLY Mr.. Mcbride objected to the in
tsksuction of testimony on behalf Of the
plsauf. which was overruled and ex-
esksions taken. as they were also taken to
~ decree Of the court. Mr.. Mcbride is
w.y much in earnest over the matter, and
hsN sstenographic report Of the proceed
h:s taken, intending to appeal the case
toshs supreme court if he can get Judge
lssssiey to sign statement of facts.
"a the trial the adultery Of the defend
ny vas clearly established by the testi-
mt:y, as was also the fact that she had
lv!i In this city representing herself as q
Gutls woman. whereas she was living
VII man other than her husband all the
tss and no objection can be taken to the
rfiing Of the decree. The question,
the sIore. Is narrowed down to the strictly
ket one Of whether this evidence should
svgs aave been introduced, or whether the
CT. ives not fatally defective as set forth
IN ta.a pleadings.
Ls Roy Darlington was the first appli-
eass Tor divorce, and his complaint was
shcss one. Judge Langley dissolved the
masiaee contracted between him and his
VII; iottie Darlington. The plaintiff al
kgs; that the parties were married in
Ls:agston. Mont, in March. 1890 In
Na.cs, 1891, however. she abandoned her
huks and aud has since remained apart
ifoe. him. The complaint. however. does
noti set forth the causes that led to the
sbaksonment.
Its second case TO occupy the attention
Of t'ie court was that of Hannah Helm
asaksss her husband, Charles Helm. and
N y 100. the decree was granted. In this
snie.so grounds for divorce were alleged,
hehssond being the unusual one Of the
sis;s4 Of the husband. The case upon
vhifa Judge Langley rendered his decis-
lon sas that the couple were married at
lerss 0scanna county, Mich, in April,
rsss snd that there are two children now
Ivsrs, boy of $ and girl of q years.
eaes October. 1891. however, the plaintiff
eialtcs that she has been Obliged to main
nnE';er husband rs we'll as her children
shi herself, although he WAS receiving
noass At that time. and that in MAY, 1892,
We Defendant left her at Toit and went
tscta.p Michigan.
iis curious part OF the story is set forth
~ ts second cause q. action. where silence
Or of the grounds upon which the de-
.N.'s sought. The plaintiff claims To
n.'t. 'ad her life rendered hurdensome by
"e ssloasy OF the husband. and from the
ss' :sa' during iNll. foT periods Of several
s~fs n a tine. he would become jealous
snd s.agry and refuse TO speak or have
say':'ag TO do with her.