The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1920-12-12
District Judge Also Puts
Blame in Some Cases
on Sudden Riches.
MISSOURI LAW AN AID
Divorce in Tulsa One Day,
New Mate in Missouri on
Next. Possible Under Laws.
Pc HARVEY F.. RHODES.

IlOU can the numDer OF ulVOrCC
cases In the courts OF Tulsa county
be reduced
has been given much serious thought
is tho district tudges--R cd mond s.
co.'s and owen owen. Both of these
-idlc,al men realize keenly the ne
cessity far reduction In divorces.
vot a practical. common sense So
lptlon Of the problem Is difficult 20
find
Roth are agreed that the appoint
ruent or tho election OF n divorce
rroc'or would he u great help In
The process OF elimination. II would
ro tho stated duty OF such an off
clal--who would have control Of
one Couuty---to personally investi-
gate each divorce case and ascer-
,aln II decree we're justified.
Would Give Unbiased S4dN.
Tho result " his investigation.
made from an unbiased viewpoint,
would be presented to tho Judge
before whom the case was TO he
tried. and 1. world not only be OF
substantial assistance TO him II used
ns the only basis on which the case
would be tried, but It would also
furnish reliable evidence upon
which he could cross examine the
parties to the suit when the case
wGs handled.
One Of the principal virtues poe-
sesscd 10y the divorce proctor should
b. diplomacy. While the fnterfer-
snce of a thiyd party Is usually dis
tasteful 20 a pair that have decided
they cannot live together longer In
peace and harmoy. Judge Cole be-
lleves there are few rare instances
IN which tho diplomatic proctor
could assist greatly In helping effect
reconciliation. Whether such re.
stored bliss would be temporary or
permanent is OF course a matter OF
conjecture But even though only q
dozen cases we're settled out Of
court each year, Judge Cole con-
tends the effort would be worth
while, The divorce proctor should
he person versed In the common
causes OF divorce, he sayB
Divorces Granted CnChallcngc!.
Judge Cole would go step fur
thcr He would authorize the coun-
~ attorney TO represent the absent
defendant TO divorce suit IL such
defendant failed to appear at the
hearing Of the case. Incidentally,
IN Tusn especially, the county at.
,orney would be kept fairly busy ~
this joS, for approximately SIS per
cent of the suits are uncontested
That Is. in only Is cases out y!
every 100 do the defendants appear
TO present their side.
And right here. Judge Cole points
out. is the principal reason for q
divorce proctor. " the defendant
ao's not appear. the other side" o.
NE suit is unknown to the Judge. He
m'st be governed in giving his de-
'D'on b" the evidence submitted. II
such evidence is entirely in favor
~ tho plalntiff--if the one request
ing the divorce testifies on oat }
mat the defendant is guilty OF com
'mtting any or all OF the acts ol
practices that are prescribed by Law
as legal grounds for divorce am
t1fe Is no refutation of this testi
nhy--thcn the Judge is legal,
pound TO grant the decree, frequent
N.when he fecl. satisfied IN his owl
rnlhd that It should not have beer
given
Pays $1,000 for Name. "Brutr."
For instance. not long ago a wifi
nied petition for divorce. alleg
ing extreme cruelty and inhumaI
treatment To read her petition wa
70 conclude that the husband was
monster In human form.
Nl the time ] was trying tn
.dse said Judge Cole, II had
vague feeling that the woman wa
NoI conforming her' story to tn
ruth You know what the feelin
"A sort ~ blind intuition. Blu
her story was 30 well told that
QUO not have contradicted he
without offering proof to sustain N
tsaInnltsnlinn' My rigid auestionin
t,"N'd ~ shake her, As the hus
"and f'd not appear against her. m
"lF course was to grant the divorce
which I did.
l remained curious about thi
~ u'dar case. One day happerc
o' talking TO the attorney VIII
,H r'prescnted her. | asked hir
" we're really true that her hus
oNua had treated her 20 cruelty n
nt''S'iate a divorce.
"'i learned the truth, He
,Isso"hd had given her $4,000 an
nu n'r lo get divorce as quick
Js, s possible, The next day after IN
Wlorce was granted she went up int
iHS'nil and was married 10 an
L, man. A wnek later tho hus
,a uu went 20 another town In Mis-
ur . ana found n second wife.
~H'''7imning the cause %: this d
g. vas not difficult after ! ha
s,S'o tho story. Both the husba n
49, u'' wife had found someone els
whom they cared. So. It M
r. y was mutually agreed ths
io.o," VIE should sue for divorce O
Is. grounds, although ] seriousl
Sted. s''""u7 ao'Na-iS e
sudden Wealth, One Cause.
oxo' Lnd that this case In not n
A. Wton, although ! wouldn't 81
III . the rule. Many cases tried q
grounds of deser,ion or ahal
ttoWeht are cases in which eth,
con nushand or the wife has h
or 'Nhmored with another wo;na
uko" "tncr man whom he or 81
Snos oetier than tne present mat
in cases occur more freuuent
capoSt IKE Tulsa because the s'
ana Hoatirg clement is larg,
S,aot.here ~ there is greater opportunity I,
'C,onS TO depart from first love