Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1922-04-27
Report Submitted by Special Grand jury
Shortly Before II O'clock Last Night
In Corporation Court
TWO SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
Jury Recommends Continuous Residence OF 300 Days or
Nights be Required Before Anyone Can Obtain Dom
ce or Residence and That Court Put This Into Effect
Till Law Can be Written on Statute Books

when the articles purporting to have
been written by Harvey l.. Cobb were
published. Gill testified that the arti-
cles were purpoSely colored, maenl-
fed and exaggerated, so as to make
rood and exciting reading matter and
that the campaign was inaugurated
purely from a commercial standpoint
for the increase of the circulation of
the Washington Times, and also to ad-
vance his own personal standing with
the publishers, and that he himself
had rewritten several of Cobb's arti-
cleS with that point in view, as ne
had no particular interest in the NOR
al conditions alleged to be then exist
ing in Alexandria. Gill further tes-
tilted that in his and Cobbs investl-
CATION they could not find any evil
dence of graft. He further testified
that the article appearing in the
Washington, d. c. Times Jan. %,
1922 was based upon an interview
which he Cobb and lady had had
with attorney Oscar Thomas at Nir-
ginia Highlands several months prev
ious and that the meeting consumed
about three and one half hours. At
torney Oscar Thomas gave testimony
70 the effect that this meeting did take
place but lasted only ten or fifteen
minutes, and that the conversation
as published in the Times or given in
GilPS testimony never took place.
ATTORNEY Thomas testimony was sup
ported bv two other witnesses who
were in the house at the time.
Harvey L. Cobb refused to appear
before this Grand Jury or in any man.
ner render assistance and he being
outside the jurisdiction of this Court
we were unable to compel his atten-
dance. Mr.. Gill who was the co-work-
er with Cobb at the time the divorce
articles were published explained that
Cobb was afraid of personal violence
should he come to Alexandria. 1t
is the opinion of this Jury that A.
Cloyd Gill of the Washington Times
has branded himself as a perverter
of the truth, not only by the testimony
of rebuttal witnesses, but by his own
as we'll
We examined he Bar Committees
and subcommittee reports and took
up the charge of loose, careless and ir-
regular practices and fraud.
One of these charges covered the
use by one law firm of the affidavit
form in preparing the bill of COM
plant instead of using the disposl-
tion form of questions and answers.
To a laymans mind this is a hair
line distinction with no difference.
In support of the other charges of
loose and careless practices we were
handed, by the Bar Association Com
mittoe, fourteen cases to examine all
of which did contain clerical errors
such as would be liable to happen in
any business or professional office, but
were satisfactorily explained to the
Jury.
In regard to the charge of fraud
having been committed in obtaining
any of these divorce suits, we have
no way of obtaining any evidence.
other than corraIirg the S07 COM
plainantS and examining them and
their witnesses as to the truth or fall
Sity of the testimony given in each
case. This we consider as impraCti-
cal, The fact that there were S07
cases instead of p or 80 cases did
not, in itself, show fraud on the part
of either the complainant, attorneys
of the Judge, but it does show de-
plorable conditions of domestic af-
fairs, and from the testimony before
this Jury this condition of domestic
infelicitv has been evidenced in the
divorce Court of other cities to lar
ger extent than it has been in Alexan-
dria, Va.
In determining whether or not the
requirements of the law have been
complied with by tie Htigants !n
these SO7 divorce suits granted by the
Corporation Court between May 1920
and Feb. 1929. we have had to study
law from the attorneys who appeared
before Us. Thirty-one attorneys told
the Jury that the law required first
that at least one of the parties to
suit must be domiciled for one year
in Virginia and a resident of the city
or county in Virginia where the case
was filed. Twenty seven attorneys
recited that domicie was a matter of
intent and that any one could come to
Virginia, express his intent to stay
year or 365 days continuously or
return and leave several times or only
occasionally during the year, which
ever he saw ft, and if his intent was
a true one he would under the law.
acquire domocie in Virginia and that
one dsv'S Stav therein with proper de-
claration would make the party a resi-
dent Of Virginia.
With this INTERPRETATION of the law
before Us. we "an easily see how the
immigrants from other states ac-
D Continued on page six)