The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-11-14
Fraudulent Actions for Divorce.

~"o SoiiopANoy W NSNe'
divorces which has just been exposed In
this city has drawn public attention to de-
fscts In the practice IN such oases.
It appears that q lawyer named HENRY
ZrMTI, who had Offices at 2S9 Broad
way, obtained Q number of fraudulent
divorces for plaintiffs for whom he APP
pearsd by acting in collusion with
another lawyer named ROYAL or
MAIsoS. who would appear as attor-
nsy for the defendant The procedure
was very simple. The case would be duly
sent to . Referee by som Justice OF the
Supreme Court, and a perjured witness
would testify before the Referee as to the
commission OF some act OF infdeltty, and
the Referee would report In favor OF the
plaintiff as q matter of course. MAisoN
was In the habit OF advertising In the news
papers that he would obtain divorces
quietly and that consultations would be
free, and advertisements Of the like nature
can be found IN some 81 our newspapers
every day.
The important question In. How can such
fraudulent or oollusive divorces be stoppedi
Some years ago. owing to dsfeots In the then
existing practice, tho Judges Of the Supreme
Court amended the general rules Of practice
so a. to provide that 10 an action for a
divorce or for the annulment OF a marriage.
where the defendant fails TO answer. no
reference shall DO granted to take proof Of
the facts. but before judgment shall be
granted. the proofs Of such facts must be
made to the Court In open court. Tho rule
further provides that the Court may
exclude all parties from the court room
except the parties TO the action and
their counsel and the witnesses. and
shall order the evidence to be sealed
up and exhibited only to the parties or TO
some one specially interested. upon order
Of the Court. This new rule guarded
against obtaining . decree OF divorce by de-
fault where no defence was put In. but II
did not prevent the Court sending cases to
q Referee where an answer Of any Kind
-hohtous or not-was i~nterposed. The
practice. therefore, Of attorneys. such as
those who arc parties 10 this recent con-
spircy, has been to have an answer inter
posed: and thus to obtain a hearing before
a Referee, whom II was easy 20 deceive by
perjured testimony. and to obtain quietly
the desired report In favor Of tho plaintiff,
Some Of the Justices Of the Supreme
Court, II would appear. are In favor Of ap-
pointing an offoer who shall discharge
the duties performed in England by the
Queens Proctor and investigate the cir
curnstances Of eaoh case so az to be certain
that the action Il not fraudulent or the evil
dsnos perjured. This suggestion, while IL
may be wen enough In its way. hardly seems
to provide adequately against the evl.
A better check-in fact. the best way 10
regulate the matter-will be either for the
Legislature to create a Divorce Court or
for the Appellate Division to assign a
Justice OF the Supreme Court TO hear
divorce cases only. and 20 make q
rule that no divorce case hereafter
shall be sent TO a Referee. lot every
action for Q divorce or for the annulment ~
a marriage Do tried before a Judge Of tho
Supreme Oourtin open court. The practice
Of sending such cases 70 Referees has grown
up from q desire to avoid publicity. and TO
shield defendants from notoriety. Tho
publication Of the details Of divorce cases Is
undoubtedly an evil. but It Is a lesser eva
than the existing praottos, which gives
ample opportunity TO obtain either a COL
liisivs divorce or q fraudulent divorce upon
perju1ed testimony. whenever ono Of the
parties II not aware thst suit has been
brought. or whenever both are so anxious
70 be freed from the marriage bond that no
objection % made to any sort Of procedure
10 accomplish the result desired.