Los Angeles herald., 1906-02-03
DIVORCE LAWS
ARE CRITICISED
DISCREPANCIES BROUGHT TO
LIGHT IN SUIT
Judge Trask, In an Interview, Shows
Difficulties Which Arise In Re-
gard to the contestants'
Property Rights

The many Inconsistencies In the
present divorce laws of this state were
made apparent in a striking manner
yesterday in motion made before
Judge Trask i'm the case of Joseph s.
John against Lydia nj. John, and the
court took occasion to comment upon
sonne of the discrepancies In the Cali
fornia divorce laws which work great
hardships upon both parties to such
proceedings.
1t is the opinion of the ablcst mem-
bcrs of the bar that the laws about
divorces need complete revision and
that a speedy remedy must be found Il
for conditions that are not only IN
tolerable to divorced persons, but which
involve property rights and business
properties in tedious litigation.
In the John case the wife defaultcd
and a divorce was granted to her nus
band and the homestead awarded to
him.
Nearly year afterward the wife
asked the court to have the interlocu-
tory decree set aside and now, the
year having expired, she claims that
the court must determine the rights or
property and asks that the homestead
property be divided.
Bigamy May Result
According to present laws all lnterloc-
utory decree may be given by lne
Judge hearing the divorce case and 1t
does not become final until a year
later. If counsel for the plaintiff ne
elects to see that the interlocutory
decree is entered the divorced parties
may innocently marry a. year after the
interlocutory decree and then fnd that
they are committing bigamy because
of the neglect to enter the first decree.
After the close of court Judge Trask
spoke in regard to the present divorce
laws as follows:
'The interesting question to lawyers
in the case that came up for hearing
today is whether. when property rights
are involved, there must be two trials,
or whether one trial is sufficient ana
the questions of divorce and property
rights can all be determined in one
trial by the interlocutory decree.
.'The attorney in the case this morn
ing contends that all that can be de-
terrnined by the interlocutory decree
is whether or not the divorce ought to
be granted and that If the court de-
terunines a divorce should be granted
and makes a decree accordingly, the
property rights of the parties cannot
be adjudicated until year afterward.
If this contention is correct. then there
can be two appeals to the supreme
court in the divorce case after the inter-
locutory decree is granted.
Litigation Indefinitely Prolonged
IAN appeal therefrom can be taken
any time within six months and If an
appeal Is taken from one to two years
might elapse before the interlocutory
decree becomes final. Thereafter there
could be an adjudication of property
rights at the hearing on motion for a
final decree and any time within six
months thereafter an appeal could be
taken by either party from the latter
decree.
1T has not yet been determined by
our supreme court whether the queS-
tion of divorce. custody and support
of children, property rights, alimony
ct cetera, can be all determined by
the interlocutory decree and trial courts
and lawyers are wholly at sea con-
cerning this question.
Power of Courts Questioned
Another serious question relates 10
the power of courts to set aside these
interlocutory DEGREES. There is nc
doubt about the power of the trial
court to set them aside under certain
circumstances within six months, but
many lawyers contend that courts have
power to set these DEGREES aside any
time within a year, on motion OF the
party procuring the divorce decree. AS
most divorce actions are between peo-
pie of little or no property these vexeo
questions nave not reached Ine Su
preme court. Until they are settled
abstract companies and lawyers viii
be unable to determine the status OF
community property of parties who are
1itigating a divorce action.
with the wisdom of the law the
courts have nothing to do, for that is
a matter for the Legislative bodies, but
it is the opinion of many lawyers and
judges, as well as other people, that
the law is very unjust and oppressive
to people who are so unfortunate as
to have divorce suits. The law has
always favored marriages and con-
tracts in restraint of marriage have
always been held void So it seems
strange that the marriage of parties
entitled to a divorce should be for
hidden for one year or any other time
In this instance the effort to reform
the divorce laws has resulted in 4
muddle of uncertainty for the statutes
appear to be very crude in regard tC