Evening star., 1901-12-05
DIvoRcESUNDERNEWc CODE
PROVISIONS WHICH OCCASION con-
Germ AMONG LAWYERS.
Proof of InAdelity the Only Basis Ad-
Amendment Probable.

The question Of divorce under the provi-
sions OF the new code Of law enacted for
the District is giving lawyers great con-
Germ as the time for the code to take effect
approaches. Absolute divorce may be
granted, says the code, only upon proof Of
infidelity, and the question arises. should
there be no amendment to the provision as
enacted, what would become Of the suits
for divorce now filed and to be filed prior
to January 1, 1902, which have not pro-
gressed sufficiently for adjudication. and
where the divorce is asked upon grounds
other than infidelity.
Divorce being purely a statutory right
and never having been allowed at common
law. it,would appear that the chancellor or
Justice sitting in equity would of necessity
be required to act under an existing statute
granting the right when he signs the de-
cree.
Since the present statute giving the court
the right to grant divorces will have been
repealed and the new statute making adul-
terry the only ground for absolute divorce
Will be in operation, 1t is held by high
legal authority that the court would not be
able to grant an absolute divorce upon any
other ground.
Section 1888 of the code. known as the
repeating clause, Is urged by some lawyers
as offsetting the effect of the new statute
as far as the cases already begun are con-
cerned.
Ills S6CIlOn, 1t Is true, eACeplS VI dt-
temptS to except from the operation of re-
peal, all rights accrued prior to the code s
Inauguration. But it is seriously doubted
by some attorneys, and it is claimed tnat
the Court of Appeals has decided, that the
desire to dissolve the marriage state, which
is the effect of a petition for divorce, Is not
such a right as is attempted to be pre-
served.
The question Will probably be settled by
the enactment of the statute already pre-
pared by the revision committee of the
bench and bar, which virtually re-enacts
the present law of divorce. That this view
of the case is being taken by many men,
bers of the bar is evidenced by the num-
bers of divorce petitions filed today
Josephine A. Latham, by her attorneys.
Wilton j. Lambert and Stuart Mcnamara,
asks divorce from James T. Latham on
a charge of desertion. 1t is set forth in
the petition that the couple were married
in Louisville KY. in the year 1876, and
that the defendant deserted his wife n
Chicago during the month of March, 1890,
and has not since contributed to her sup
port.
Desertion is the plea of Augusta V. Cole
for a divorce from Peter L. Cole. The
parties were married in 1888 and lived to-
gether until 1898. VIM. B. Reilly represents
the petitioner.
The petition for divorce filed by Lola A.
Byram against James H Byram, Jr.,
charges the defendant with the excessive
use of intoxicants, cruel treatment and in
fidelity. The couple were married February
l. 1894. Campbell Darlington appears for
the petitioner.
The same attorney has filed the petition
of Virginia Stewart for divorce from
Charles c. Stewart. The parties were mar
ried November 16, 1890, and the petition
charges the defendant with breaking up
the boarding house conducted by complain
ant prior to her marriage, and taking with
him the household effects to Cape May N
J. Since his departure, it is alleged, de-
fendant has not contributed to his wife's
support. Acts of cruelty are also alleged
Enid s. Fackner- has sued for divorce
from Joseph M. Fackner upon the plea of
desertion. Petitioner was married to de-
fendant July 81, 1897. and charges deser-
ton since March 1, 1899.
Gesine s. Owens asks for divorce from
Joseph B. Owens. The couple were mar
ried October 13. 1892, at Benning, D. c.
The petitioner alleges desertion, and de-
ciares the husband refuses to return, and
no reconciliation can be effected