New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-09-03
FAvOR|T|SM IN DIVORCE
Golf Calls Practice ''FaliacIous
and Mischievous."
ANTAGONIzES COURT RULING
Justice Says Suppression OF
Testimony Does Not Protect
Public Morals.

Justice Goff wrote an opinion yesterday
that strikes a hard blow at the practice or
sealing papers in divorce actions that have
been tried before a referee IN a long de-
cision the Justice disaprroved Of the prac-
tce as being one that made 1t necessary
to grant favors to some htigants that are
not enjoyed by others anG said that II was
both "fallacious and mischievous-
His opinion was directly contrary 70 rule
20 Of the Appellate Division Of the Supreme
Court which provides for secrecy tn divorce
actions The court secuted the theory on
which this rule was founded that the Sc
crecy Is In the interest of public morahty'
for many similar cases are tried IN open
court Only the litgants are oenenteu'
Justice Golf denied the motion in the
case at issue. where counsel for plain
tiff and defendant both asked that the pa
pers be sealed
The case was that Of Alfred p. Laighton
against his wife Mrs. Marion S. Laishton'
The action was begun asst November when
Mrs. Laighton was served by publication
she being at the time in West virginia
William Allen was appointed by the SUI
preme Court referee. and he reported IN
favor Of a decree for Laighton. Justice
Golf confirmed the referees report yester-
day. granted the interiocutory decree and
wrote his opinion regarding secrecy IN d.
vorce suits. He said regarding the re-
quest Of counsel:
This means that the record Of action at
law should be held in inviolate secrecy. II
is a rule Of general application that the
records of the court should be as accessible
10 the public as the court itself. To this
rule exception is sought 10 be made that in
the case OF a divorce the testimony should
DC kept secret 10 protect public morals
This is the only reason that can be ration
ally advanced TO justify the exception and
II is both fallacious and mischievous. IL is
fallacious in that public morals canrot be
protected by secrecy. IL Is common knowl-
edge that in this state divorce can be de-
creed on only one cause. DEGREES granted
publicly for this cause are common, ana
whatever injury public morals may sustain
is fixed as a consequence.
Such suppression acts as an incentive
10 the morbidlv curious 70 allow their i'm
agination to run riot in speculation. We're
IL a general rule 70 suppress testimony IN
all divorce cases it's proprtety and useful
ness might be defended. but II IS gross
delusion TO attempt 10 conserve or proteci
public morals by suppressng the testl'
mony in one case. while IN hundreds or
other cases the meretricious details are
publicly narrated in court or set forth IN
extenso in the reports Of referees, WHICH
are open 70 public inspection.
1T is mischievous in that the real reason
is not go much the protection Of public
morals as II is the cloaking with secrecy OF
the names Of the persons involved. and this
suggests the idea OF privilege and favor
itism. OF all evils which may assan the
administration Of Justice this ts the most
insidious and great care should be taken
TO avoid even the appearance Of exceptions
for favored persons"
Mrs. Laighton was Miss Bowne before
her marriage 20 Laighton. in 1853. The
husband alleged that his wife left him IN
1895 and went 10 Europe, and later 10
Sioux Falls. S. D. Subsequently she made
her home at Twin Oak Farm, Warrenton
Va. where il was said she lived with
William H. Hubbell. While still TIE wife
Of L,aighton. it was alleged, she married
Hubbeu