Evening journal., 1912-01-11
BANCROFT
DIVORCE CASE
ON In PRIVATE

-
spicy testimony, and accompanied by
camera men, we're we'll represented,
but there were no sob sisters" as
the women who write the sensational
side OF such hearings are known, in
evidence. John Bancroft. Jr., the
plaintiff, and his father were present
when court opened, and after ]. Har-
vey Whiteman, for Mr.. Bancroft, and
I. Bayard Heisel for Mrs. Bancroft
announced that they were ready.
Chief Justice Pennewill made a state
ment that the hearing would be con-
Quoted privately. The Chief Justice
said
The Courts Position.
Counsel for the respective parties
at our request. have informed us of the
CHARACTER of the testimony which will
De produced IN this case, so that the
Court might determine whether the
nearing should be public or private.
we Know there are very good reasons
why hearings in divorce cases should
De public, and that such has been the
Act Of 1907
And, moreover it must be conceded
that such practice is in harmony with
the policy of said act, the manifest
intention OF which is that hearings
should be public. But it is also true
that after the passage of the act re-
ierred to the Legislature amended the
same by providing that, for reasons
appearing sufficient to the Court. the
nearing and trials may be had before
the Court privately in chambers
The Legislature has, therefore. bv
SAID amendment recognized the facr
that there may be cases where. for the
protection Of the public morals or
other causes, it would not be advis-
able to have public hearings.
In addition to the sensational feat
ures OF this case, and the repulsive ma
ture OF the testimony which we are in
formed will be produced, all of which
strongly incline us to a private hear
ing there is in issue the legitimacy of
an innocent child. This is a matter
we think should not be given unneces-
sary publicity. and are clearly of The
opinion that no sound public policy
would be subserved thereby.
After very careful consideration
we have reached the conclusion that
this case is clearly comprehended bv
the amendment above mentioned. and
have decided, for reasons that appear
sufficient to us, that the hearing or
trial shall be had privately in
chambers"
Lawyers Remain In Room.
Court officers then cleared the room
of the public and the reporters and
camera men, but il was noticed that
there was no inclination on the part
or the lawyers TO leave. The bar GER
tainly was largely represented. Bail
ms barred the corridors leading into
the court room to keen out the gem
eral public. Unlike other hearings
that have been conducted privately.
however. the lawyers and court
ofhcials we're allowed to remain.
Mr. Whiteman appears as chief
counsel for Mr.. Bancroft. and asso-
ciated with him Is Charles Terry. OF
New York. who came into court with
a pile Of law books. Associated with
Mr. Heisel for Mrs. Bancroft Is Pax
son Deeter. from the office Of former
Acknowledgement John c. Bell. OF
Pennsylvania Mr.. Bell is Of counsel
I'm the case. hut is not expected to
/
william r. Kurt7 who went 10 Ger
many as commissioner in the case
Recorder Of Deeds A. V. T. George
and Secretary william Malcom. a.
the Roard OF Health. were nresent
with recordsl of birth to he offered in
evidence. Four women were among
the witnesses.
JUDGING from the manv nhvsicians
nresent there will he a battle Of
medical exnerts. SUMMONED for Mr..
Bancroft were Drs Peter w Towlin-
son 7. Harvey Snruauce 7 Paul
Inkene Irvine NJ Eiinn. II J. Stuhhs
ana s G. Rumford.
Dr Wilmer Krnseu professor NJ
obstetrics In Tempie ITniversitv Phil
adelnhia was nresent todav FOR Mre
paucroft's side aud tomor~ow. he will
no ioined nv nr parton q Hirst mo-
sassor of obstetrics Of the University
of Pennsylvania.
I An interesting noint that NAV cror
IN over the case &c whether or not
an anneal can he taken from Sunerior
Court 10 tho Sunreme ronrt IN an ac-
tion for divorce. None has ever heen
taken. II is understood and the n0in'
has heen d'scrssed informaliv amOne
members Of the Rsl among whom
there seems to he so.No difference NJ
oninion VI Is nointed ont however
fhat annea1s can hn taken IN eiactiou
hriherv cases ard 81 is thought thav
could as we'll he taken ir divorce cases
on uuesiions Of law and fact.
aeNEslygs--u..IuIEDulsg..