Los Angeles herald., 1907-04-14

a luxury that only the rich can afford.
one of the contradictions of the law
which the discussion has brought to
light is the fact that to sue for di-
vorce in forma pauperis costs at least
$3.50 and that no solicitor will under
take to see an undefended divorce suit
through in the ordinary way for less
than $780, The cost of contested suit
Will, of course, be much heavier
Sir Gorell Barnes has taken an active
part In the discussion, an almost un-
heard of thing for an English judge to
do, and, unlike many persons who de-
nounce an evil, he has proposed a rem
edy He would first of all place the
sexes on an equality with regard to
causes for divorce, and he would then
simplify and cheaper the process of
dissolving the marriage that has be-
come mockery of the term.
His plan involves an extension to the
county courts, which in civil ltiga-
tions are known as the poor mans
courts, of the power to try divorce
proceedings and to grant DEGREES sub
Ject perhaps to confirmation by the
high courts in which the suits are now
tried. This would do away at a stroke
with the heavy costs of the high courts
and would also reduce lawyers fees, for
solicitors may practice in county courts
while in the high courts it is necessary
to employ the services of a barrister.
No testimony to the need for cheaper
and simpler divorce laws has been
more striking than that given by the
London police magistrates, whose ac-
quaintance with the problems of the
poor is unrivaled. There is a law en-
powering police magistrates to grant
judicial separations to husbands and
wives for cruelty, drunkenness and for
other offenses. This separation does
not, of course, carry with it the right
to remarry.
Compelled to Act
The magistrates point out that they
have been placed in the position of be-
ing compelled to grant hundreds of
separation orders in cases where di-
vorce was the only proper remedy, and
that every one of these separations
places two persons in the position of
being condemned to a life of celibacy
or immortality. 1t must be4 admitted
that the result is usually immortality.
The number of irregular unions among
the working class In England Is as
tonishingly large, and in almost every
one of such unions inquiry shows that
one of the parties is not free to marry
although he or she would have been If
divorce were not so expensive a luxury.
1t is interesting to note that at the
time when America is moving toward
stricter divorce laws England which
has long sneered at America for laxity
in this respect, is talking of letting
down the bars and that her judges are
leading the way. A few years ago
English judges would not even listen
to a suggestion that they should rec
ognize a divorce obtained in America
as binding on British subjects. Re-
Gently they have recognized even South
10 nd YnfYY 30
annul marriages on the gro1nd of the
irregular manner in which the parties
to them had obtai-ILd their freedom.
One of the Lest known cases of this
kind was that of Mrs. Amy Armitage,
who applied to the court for a pro-
nouncement on the legitimacy of her
marriage to Mr.. ArmitaRe. She had
been married previously to Charles A.
Gillig, but she had obtained divorce
from him in South Dakota on the
ground of desertion.
Case of Mr.. GiIlig
Mr.. Gillig married again. but later
applied to the English courts for a
decree annulling his second marriage on
the ground that his first wife was still
living. This cast doubt On the validity
of Mrs. Armitage's second marriage,
and she applied to have this point
cleared up.
Sir Cornell Barnes raid that all he
felt himself called upon to do was to
inquire whether the divorce obtained
in South Dakota was legal there or not.
1t did not matter to him whether the
grounds for divorce in South Dakota
were or were not those recognized in
England. He had satisfied himself that
Mrs. Armitage's decree of divorce from
Mr.. Gillig was quite regular and ac-
cordingly he pronounced her second
marriage valid.
Subsequently the husl nd married
again and his second wife was named
as correspondent m the first wife's suit.
The Judge refused 10 proceed with the
cas-, holding Lat she had already been
divorced legally.