The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1911-06-18
Continued from First Page.l

decree of divorce is granted. Then Mrs.
Suchandsuch il free to go into any
State in the Union, legally divorced
woman, and Suchandsuch Is restored to
single blessedness.
Now, the interesting feature Of these
two cases is that they are true. They
are typical of what has been going on
in Washington and Virginia for the last
five years. The city of Alexandria, the
county Of Alexandria, and the county of
Fairfax constitute three of the cutest
little Renos east of the Rocky Noun
tains. They are an untold joy to Wash
ington couples who mutually agree that
they want to be divorced. They are an
unalloyed delight to the Washington
man or woman who wants to get d
divorce without the knowledge OF wife
or husband. They are a haven of refuge
to those who have good reason to want
a divorce, but cannot get 1t on the one
ground provided in the District of Co.
lumbia law.
Abuses Outweigh Benefits.
Accurate statistics, of course, are not
available, but 1t is believed by those
who have Investigated the situation that
the abuse of the easy means for untying
that knot that doesn't always bind
provided at the very threshold of the
National Capital-far outWeighs the ben
eIltE derived DY the OeSeTNlIS-
In the District the law recognizes but
one cause for divorce. Virginia recog-
nizes six. The District law went into
effect In 1902 and ever since then the
number OF divorces granted In the cor
poration court at Alexandria, the circuit
court Of Alexandria county. and the cir
cult court of Fairfax county has been
rapidly increasing, the percentage OF In
crease being $50 in Alexandria. 500 In
Alexandria county, and 300 in Fairfax
county. Obviously, there has been no
such percentage of increase in popula-
lation. Obviously. also, the bulk OF the
increase in the number OF divorces mas
come from the growing practice OF
Washingtonians to get divorces just
across the river.
The vicious feature Of the virginia
law, however. Is not its multiplicity OF
causes for divorce. but its inadequate
provision for serving notice OF suit
against the defendant and for the pro.
lection Of the rights of the defendant at
the trial. 1t is possible for man whose
wife lives right here in Washington TO
get a divorce in Virginia without her
knowledge and therefore without giving
her an opportunity to appear and con-
test the action or present her side OF the
case. Furthermore, divorces OF just
that character are frequently obtained.
The system Of serving notice of suit in
Virginia is one OF the most charming
ever conceived. " Ilcil So hhN 81 Soh tiAo
divorce his wife was served with notice
by the simple process of posting brief
statement of the case on the court mouse
door. Never having occasion TO visit
the court house, and having no fr1ends
In the vicinity. Mrs. So and so over
looked this legal publication" and
hubby walked off with the decree. IT
was all perfectly straight, and proper
and in conformity with the Virginia
statutes for such cases made and pro
vided. OF course. it worked fright
full injustice on the unsuspecting wire,
but the divorce stands. just the same.
Notice by publication"
The Virginia law relating to service
OF notice of suit requires that notice
shall be served personally II the de-
PENDANT is g resident of the State; other
wise. notice shall be by publication"
II Is this publication" section Of the
code that contains the Joker. Note it
carefully:
Every order of publication shall
give the abbreviated style OF the
suit. state briefly its object. and re-
quire the defendent against whom
il is entered. or the unknown parties,
to appear within fifteen days after
due publication thereof and do what
ever is necessary to protect their In
terests. 1t shall be published once
a week for four successive weeks IN
such newspaper as the court may
prescribe, or, II none be prescribed.
as the clerk may direct, and snail
be posted by the clerk. at the front
door of the courthouse of the coun-
ty or corporation wherein the court
is held, on or before the next sue
ceeding rule day after II Is entered;
and the clerk shall file certificate
of the fact in the papers of the case:
but the court, or the judge thereof
NWN a
court or judge deem 1t proper, dis
npense with such publication In
newspaper.
II will be noted that this leaves 1t
to the discretion of the court and the
clerk whether the notice shall be pub
lished in newspaper or op- the court
house door. Sometimes the door method
practically sure never to hear of II.
Even when the notice is published In
a newspaper, there's little likelihood
that 1t will ever reach the eye of the
other party to the suit, because the
paper doesn't happen to circulate in the
Community where he or she happens to
Joker In Residence Clause.
Another Joker in the situation is the
years residence Whether the residence
Is bona fide or a "satchel residence" as
the Washington and Virginia lawyers
call it, depends wholly upon the con-
science of the person bringing the suit.
When he files his pleadings ne also MES
an affidavit that he is resident of the
state. Nobody but the defendant, Of
course. would have any interest in ques-
tioning this affidavit, and If the defend
ant doesn't happen to know the suit has
been started. naturally, he isn't exactly
in position to demand a showdown on
the residence question. The affidavit is
accented as evidence unless 1t is ques-
toned, and It's part Of the system to
see that the only person who would care
about Questioning it Is In blissful ignor-
ance of the whole proceeding.
In the District the rights OF the de-