The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-05-21
COURTS PLAIN WORDS
JUDGE BAKER DENIES AN INJUNC-
TION IN w. f. TURNER'S ACTION.
He Declares that Turner became a
Bankrupt to Avoid Paying
just AlimOny.

Judge Baker, of the United States Court.
has denied injunction in the action of
William F. Turner against Stella NJ. Tur
ner The petition filed by Turner was for
an injunction to restrain the prosecution
or proceedings supplementary to execu
ton in court of the State. On March l.
complainant. filed her complaint for di-
vorce in the Circuit Court of Elkhart
county on the ground of cruel and inhu-
man treatment. She also asked for ali
mony. Proceedings were had later and the
divorce was grated and $500 alimony was al
lowed. 1t is claimed that Turner, before the
alimony could be collected filed a volun-
tary petition in bankruptcy. on March Is,
1901 Mrs. Turner instituted proceedings
supplementary to execution in the State
court to enforce the payment of the de-
cree of alimony. On May Is. Turner filed
his petition for injunction, asking the
court to restrain the defendant from fur
Their prosecution of the proceedings supple
mentary TO execution.
In denying the injunction the court gave
his views in an emphatic way. THE policy
of the State" the court says, lis to give
bread to the divorced wife, but the bank
rupt act, on complainants contention
would give her husks instead. 1t would rob
the wife OF her support and reward the
guilty husband by granting him full and
free discharge. 1T may be that Congress
has the power indirectly through a bank
rupt law to defeat the policy of the State
regulating the dissolution of the contract
OF marriage. 1t could not do 1t directly,
because the regulation of the domestic re-
lationS is matter purely of State concern.
The court ought not TO impute to Con-
gress design to defeat the policy of the
State unless the language claimed TO &C.
compllSh IL is so clear and unmiStakable
that no other construction can be given to
1t. In my opinion the present bank
rupt law ought not TO receive q cOnStruc-
ton which would absolve the guilty hus-
band from the duty of support, although
the measure of that duty is fixed by a de-
cree of court. The object of the
bankrupt act was to relieve the honest
and unfortunate debtor from the burden of
his debts. The petition is addressed
TO court of equity and invokes its active
assistance in the enforcement Of an al
legged legal right secured TO the bankrupt
by the bankrupt act. He who seeks equity
ought to offer 10 do equity. Equity will not
feed the husband and starve the wife Any
thing more disgraceful in a moral point of
view than the complainants attempt, by
becoming a voluntary bankrupt and mani
testify for the sole purpose of cutting Off
the alimony decreed to his wife, cannot
be imagined When the active assistance
forcement of naked legal right, 1T will
refuse its aid where granting ii would
work injustice; or If II grants its assistance
it will only do II upon conditions which
Will mitigate or relieve the injustice. The
complainant has made no offer TO mitigate
relieve the injustice of deprivng his
wife of support. The prayer for injunction
will be denied"