Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1922-03-18
DIvORCEP PROBE
CLOSED With
ARGUMENTS
Expected That Bar Commit
tee Will Make Report
Next Week
ARGUE THREE HOURS
Frank Stuart Opens and John S. Bar
bour Closes On Behalf of Judge
hGncuTe.

Final arguments were made today
in the corporation courtroom before
the special committee OF seven Of the
Alexandria Bar Association, which
mas completed it's probe Of the divorce
situation in Alexandria. The open
ing argument was made by Attorney
Frank Stuart, who charges Judge
Moncure with the lax enforcement OF
the divorce laws according to his own
statement made this morning before
the committee.
The closing was made by Attorney
John S. Barbour, representing Judge
Moncure. Each side was given an
hour and half for their argument.
Th.rc was q omparatively small
crowd in attendance. Less than 90
persons were in court when the arGu-
ments were begun, among them be-
ing a number OF women. Mr.. Stuart,
in his opening, declared that he was
in en- unusual attitude. Prior to the
Ear Association of the city deciding to
investigate the divorce situation, he
declared he had intended to file four
charges against Judge Moncurc with
the State Legislature, one OF which
was the lax enforcement of the di-
vorce laws. He declared, however,
that he was not the originator of the
charges to be presented to the l.eglsa-
ture.
This case, Mr.. Stuart said, is a
unique one. Referring to the Bar As
sociation, he asserted that the first day
they met he felt ne was being antag-
oniZed because he said he had brought
to the courts attention a condition
which he declared existed. At that
meeting, he said, he was practically
single handed, and he claimed that
subsequent developments have proved
beyond the shadow of 4 douht that
conditions he claimed do exist. Mr..
Stuart asserted that it was not his
purpose to reflect on any member OF
the committee so far. Any state
ments he may have made were entirely
due, he said, to the antagonistic stand
against him. Mr.. Stuart told the COM
mittec that many cXtraneous matters
and personalities have been brought
into the investigation.
Mir. Stuart, in conclusion, asked the
committee to demand the resignation
Of Judge Moncure. and in the event of
MS refusal, that they ask the Legls!a-
ture to act, saying that in all serious
ness they make such a request as the
facts Justify, John S. Barbour started
his argument shortly before noon.
Mr.. Barbour. after admitting that.
as stated by Mr.. Stuart, the situation
here is unique and most deplorable,
due to the publicity which has been
given it, unfairly, as he said, went
into a discussion Of the distinction
between domicile and residence. and
emphasized the fact that the judge
sitting in divorce cases, or other civil
cases, must necessarily be bound by
the record rather than any private
knowledge he may have or may be
supposed to have.
The matter of domicile, as required
by the Virginia statute, said Mr.. Bar
bour. is entirely matter OF intent.
The law requires that person fling
suit for divorce must have a domicile
in the State of Virginia for twelve
months next preceding the Institution
cf the suit. and must, in addition, be
rcdsiding within the jurisdiction of
the particular court in which suit IS
filed at the time of filing the suit. In
order to acquire domicile under the
law, Mr.. Barbour says, it is not neces-
sary that person snail continuously
reside in Alexandria. 1t is only nee
esSary that q person shall form de-
termination to call a particular place
his home. in order 10 establish doEal-
Gle. and so far rs residence IS con-
ccrned. that may be only momentary,
and still comply with the law.
Should a person desire to secure =
divorce. Gc said, having good and
sufficient grounds. there is no reason,
either in law or IN morals, wh sucyh
- person can not come from Washing
ton. or from any other place. to Alex
andria, with his or her mind made up
10 acquire domicile in Alexandria,
establish such domicile by engaging
room. or sowe such technical evi-
"@nc" Of IN" purpose 10 establish a
domicile, then leave Alexandria and
reside wherever he may desire. The
domicile. he saws. having been once es-
tablished, continues until the intent Of
the person to change such residence
has been formed.
In support of his contention, Mir
Barbour cited several decisions of the
supreme court of appeals. Particularly
that in the case of Towson vs., Tow
son, in which the party filing sui,
was born in Stafford County, Virginia
had lived for many years in Wash
ington. and came to Alexandria ant
established a residence for the pur
pose of filing suit for divorce Ths
court of appeals held that Towsol
Continued on Page 81