The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1905-11-23
Is There Need Of More Publicity
IN Divorce?

investigation into the facts and clfcum-
stances attending application to the /
courts for annulment Of the marriage
VOW? Are our Judges too lenIent Ia
granting divorces? These, and other
s1mliaf qles ions are beng asked BY
clergy men. attorneys Of the better class .
and standing in the legal profession and /
by laymen who believe that the divine 4
pfecept of Those Whom God Hath join (
ed, Let Not Man Put Asunder should be (
more strongly supported by people aud .
by the courts.
That there is law enough on the stat .
ute books Of Maine. If the true facts can .
be obtained ana the law is rightly ap-
piled, is beyond question. The law is
there but shrewd members Of The legal
profession with interruptions clients,
often are abe TO 80 state facts, or OIs-
torted iacts, III such a manner TIA even
old AMI experienced members Of the
bench do MOI get at the bottom Of tue
cases before them.
PenobscOt county, holding civil terms
OF the Supreme court in January, April
aud October, may be taken AS an exam
pie of the growing evil and PenObscot
county is no different from other coun-
ties in the state which have a proper
tioni ate number of cases Each term Of
the Supreme court in this county sees
too many divorces granted in which
applicants have been able to sttIsfy the
courts of the justice of their cases,
One great evil, and perhaps the great
I s4tFi y,4. IL
vorce mill is that in a large percentage
| of cases divorce proceedings are not con
tested The court hears only one side
of the case. Divorce proceedings are,
from their nature, equity cases. Unlike
| regular proceedings in court, the non
appearance of the hbelee and his failue
To answer to the summons does not de
fault the case to the libelant. BY the
non appearance of the llbeee the a!lega
| lions, of which he or she is furnished
with copy, are not presumed to be
true by the court. The libelant must
| prove the truth of the allegations in the
! libel for divorce before the court grant
a divorce and they must be proven as
such that the acts complained Of are
such az to entitle the llbeant to a di-
vorce under the statute.
The discussion of the divorce question
has done much in the way of reform
Judges in most states are giving more
thought to the question and the result is
more searching inquiry into cases
which comes before them but there is
YET vast room for improvement, in the
opinions of those interested in the ques-
ton
Ii was at a recent term of court in
Maine that one of the honorable justices
gave notice at the beginning of the term
that he would not hear any divorce Ii
bells until after the other business of the
court was finished, giving as a reason
that he could not give them his full
mind and attention which he deemed
nee ssary while considering the other
matters of the term His action met
with the approval of many who are in
interested ia the question. II has been
! claimed that our method OF hearing di
v3ree proceedings, of rushing cases in at
times when there is nothing for the
! juries to do, is not such as to yield the
best efforts from the minds Of our
justices
A suggestion which has been made by
a learned Maine lawyer and which seems
| plausible is that the statute should be
strengthened in that a stronger effort
| should be made 10 get libeee6 INTO court
and give the presiding justice an oppor
tunity To question both parties in the
case 1t Is his idea that proceedings
should not end with the service of the
| libel on the offending party but that the
| summons should be made that he APP
pear in court az though he was Classed
| as witness in the case and that the
proceedings should not DO minated
until he be brought into court or it WAS
shown that il was impossible to get ser
vice of official notice on him, as is
required when the residence of the IL
belize is unknown to the lbelant.
In this way, it is claimed, the true
facts of marital unhappines would be
laid bare before the court and many i'm
positions on the court be avoided Too
often is the case that the party applying
for the divorce is the party at fault. By
the non appearance of the other party
the presiding justice is unable to get at
the true facts OF the case and the COM
plainant having made out plausible
case decree is granted which would
have otherwise been refused
Judges are forced to rely on the evil
! deDce which is presented for their con-
sideration, what they can bring out of
witne SEES by questioning and on their
personal observations of petitioners
while in court If this fails to allow ad
verse light on the case than they have
little else to do but grant the applica-
ton. People are often too hasty in
censuring judges for leniency in grant
ing applications, knowing nothing OF
court procedure and lite of what is pre-
sented in the case for his consideration
In nearly every case the court knows
nothing of the circumstances of any case
which comes before him. Evidence
which might not appear plausible to one
acquainted with full details of a case
may be perfectly plausible to one hear
ing but one side of a case and knowing
nothing else except what he may bring
out by random questioning.
AS an illustration of this point, not
! long ago divorce case was heard in one
of our Maine county courts in which the
! libellant was young woman who APP
! Piled for and received a decree of di-
vorce on the ground of cruel and abusive
treatment There was no appearance on
the part of the libelee and the presiding
| justice listened to a pathetic story of
cruel treatment on the part of the hus-
! band. The story even interested those
In the court room who were accustomed
to hearing many divorce cases. 1t was
story of human interest and inquiries on
the part OF an astute justice failed TO
pick any flaws in her story
In less than Is months afterwaTd il
appeared that the story that had been
! told on the stand by the libellant must