The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-03-19

I like an exhibition as can DO seen In court
room.
She retails the story Of her married life
with almost as much unooncern as though
she we're suing a laundry company and
we're describing the running Of shirt waist
II il business proposition. The law gives
her eight chances for a divorce, and she's
going 10 land a decree through one Of them,
Just watch her
or course there are tears and pathos and
tragedy in the Chicago divorce courts
! There are these things In plenty Sobbing
and heartbroken women take the stand TO
tell Of lives Of abuse and degradation caused
| by brutes TO whom 1t would seem no law
should require them to continue united.
They tell Of years OF wifehood and mother
hood during which they have sewed OF
scrubbed or washed to keep bread In the
mouths Of little ones and whiskey in the
mouth Of the father They tell Of struGgles
and Self-saorihce on their part, year after
year, met by kicks, blows, curses, attempts
to kill or main.
Husbands, too, tell Of sad years-of de-
votion, generosity, kindness, patience,
love. ending In the divorce court because
Of womans vioiousness, drunkenness or
depravity. Pathetic cases, however, are
In a minority 80 great that the general
impression left after hearing hundreds Of
trials is a memory compounded Of busl-
ness and joking.
It il constantly 10 be obser ,ed that many
compliments who do not ask for a divorce
decree as they ask for ticket on the rail-
road. ask for It as they would for a ticket to
a farce. Husbands or wives are continually
punctuating their evidence with smiles and
laughter in the divorce mills, as they re-
count the faults Of the absent. one.
Some complainants. with less Ingenious
ness and more tact, keep their laughter
until they are safely % the stand and in
the corridor outside the court room. Here
successful divorce applicants may be found
on Saturday mornings in the season bub-
bling over with merrlment. az they form
the centres Of giggling, joking groups
complainant, attorney and corroborative
witnesses.
Quite cheerful happy places are the
Chicago iii yorce mills Of a Saturday morn
ing Why should they not be? The COM
plainants are all getting what they want.
There are, Of course. refusals Of DEGREES
but verv occasional refusals. They arise
from lack of evidence OF indications Of
COLLISION between the parties
The impression left after seeing divorce
Judges go through their calendars lie that
they themselves would refuse divorces.
were II in their discretion. in many cases
in which the law forces them TO grant
DEGREES. Judge Kavansgh indicated this
attitude Of the bench recently in the case
OF Elizabeth Fiebeg against Rudolph Fie-
beg in which he granted separate main
tenance. but refused divorce.
The woman had been in the United States
only thirteen months. could speak no Eng
fish and got married after knowing Fiebeg
two weeks. According TO an attorney
connected with the case. the woman asked
Fiebeg on the day they were married how
the marriage contract could be annulled.
Judge Kavanagh said
Here ane two persons who rush into
marriage after knowing each other but a
fortnight They live together but nine
months, and one month after separating
this woman comes into the court with bill
for divorce. alleging cruelty.
SIS not this making a mookery Of the
marriage covenant Why should these
people, old enough 10 know what they
we're doing when they entered into the
marriage contract. be permitted to cast on
the tie in such fashion,
THE word should 60 forth that marriage
cannot be cast OF like an old shoe. In a
divorce suit there are not two parties, but
three-the complainant, the defendant and
the State. The interests Of all should be
subserved'
Another OF the infrequent cases Of re-
fusal Of decree was the suit Of Emma
Ohms against Frederick T. Ohms before
IL n1oo,.Iar l., IL
decree was refused because It appeared
probable that the complainant was asking a
divorce 10 enable her husband 10 marry
her own sister.
Mrs Fiebeg is not the only foreigner
with no knowledge Of English who appears
in the local divorce courts. The proper
ton Of Europeans, usually Of an excessively
ignorant class, who are freed from marital
responsibilities by Chicago courts Is large.
Such names at Snersd, Belsd, Zengnen,
Vsliquet, Hamlicka. Davielovicz, Bogda,
Gregg, Barkmas, Porunsky, Boeger, Ikert
are repeatedly occurring In divorce court
records, and interpreters for Bohemians,
Poles Germans, Slavonians and other
Europeans are In demand.
All classes Of the community seek the
divorce mills Lawyers, doctors, business
men, CleIRyiuens lhbhoudDlt peOpitt al
figure in connection with the eight divorce
causes. just as do policemen, butchers,
plumbers, railroad conductors, iron mold
ers and stock yard laborers. The body Of
divorce litigation Is. however, recruited
from the mass Of small shop keepers, artisans
and manual workers.
With such hodge-podge Of human beings
as are collected at the divorce courts, many
odd and curious cases come to light
As peculiar a case as has been seen for
some time was a recent suit in which all the
parties concerned were deaf mutes. The
wife, who was suing on the ground OF
cruelty, was a deaf mute; 30 was the absent
husband; 30 were the witnesses The wife
told her story in the sign language to an
interpreter, who translated 1t into speech,
and the witnesses did the same. The divorce
was granted
Last November a woman so years old,
who had been married fifty-three years,
appeared In the court as complainant. She
alleged desertion, made a case and walked
out OF the room with her octogenarian
liberty.
Another recent cornplainant was n man