Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1922-02-24

tee of the Alexandria Bar Associa-
ton continued its sessions until iate
Yesterday afternoon. and adjourned 10
meet Friday, March 3, at lO m.
ATTORNEY John S. Barbour, OF falr-
fax, who represented Judge Robinson
Moncure as his personal counsel stat.
ed to the committee that ne nao ho'
had an opportunity to famiilarize MN,
self with the case, and that he desired
to cross-eXamine witnesses at soNie
length. but would not be able to ap-
near before the committee agaln De-
fore the date named.
Chairman Howard ". Smith re-
ouested attorney Oscar L. lnomas'
whose name had been mentioned IN
an article appearing in Nashlng-
ton newspaper, to give the committee
the benefit of any information ne
might have. Mr.. Thomas, through ms
attorney, r. w. Stump, stated that the
article in question, in so far as 1t re-
lated to him, grossly misstated the
facts, and requested that he be allow
ed to appear, with witnesses on
March 5.
Rev. William J. Morton, rector OF
Christ Episcopal Church, represent.
ing the Ministerial Association, stated
to the committee that in the fall OF
1920 he and Rev. DR.. Register had
been appointed a committee to IN
teryiew Judge Moncure regarding the
abnormal number of divorces being
granted; that he had he'd an interview
with the Judge and made a.report>
the association; that both prior and
subsequent to this he had discussed
the matter with Judge Moncure, and
also with Judge Barley, and that both
Judges had told him they were adj
ministrators of the law rather than
law makers. Ht said he believed both
Judges had endeavorcd to administer
the law conscientiously. but IN his
opinion the fault lay with the law IT
self. DR.. Morton stated that he had
always been a determined opponent
OF divorces.
judge ]. X. NJ. Norton called the
attention of The committee to the
case of Wright VS.. Wright, in which
certain papers were said to be missing.
He stated that he had certified copy
of all papers in this case which he
would place at the disposal of the
committee. He said that Mr.. Wright
was present. and had stated that the
answer in his divorce case had beer
signed by w. S. Snow as counsel
without his. Wright's authority. and
that he would like to near what Mr.
Wright had to say on the subject.
Mr.. Wright was called, and when
asked to describe his suit stated that
his wife in her allegation claimed that
he had deserted her on February Z,
1918. but that as matter of fact she
deserted him in February, 1920: that
she also claimed to have established
residence in Alexandria, which was
not true: that she lived in Washing
ton until December 2. 1920. He said
that in the papers filed by Mrs.
Wright she claimed to have LETT him
in April, 1920, land in May 1920 ap-
piled for and obtained board at the
home of John W. Smalley, 329 5
street, n W.. Washington. where she
lived up to and including the date of
filing of the suit. He stated that dur
ing the time his wife claimed to be
living in Alexandria she was actually
living in Washington at the c street
address, and that he visited their
child in Washington about times a
week. and on these occasions always
found her at home.
Wright stated that he had dis
cussed the matter of a divorce with
his wife, and had agreed to her filing
suit on the ground of "incompatibill-
ty," with the understanding that he
would be permitted to see their child,
and that he did not discover the real
grounds which had been alleged until
after the granting of the divorce,
when he came to Alexandria and OBJ
tanned 4 copy of the papers.
AS to the answer to the suit, which
apparently bore his signature as de-
fendant, by W. S. Snow as counsel,
Wright stated that he had never sign
ed any such paper, and had not en-
ployed Mr.. Snow as his counsel to de-
fend the suit. He stated that he had
asked Mr.. Budwesky on three diff
ferent occasions for the bill of COM
plainant and was told on each occa-
sion that the bill had not been made
out, and he did not know what he was,
charged with until after the degree o.
divorce was granted when he came to
Alexandria and obtained copy of
the papers.
Wright stated that. Hrs father-in-
law had committed perjury, and that
his reason for instituting proceedings
Continued on page threce