Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1922-03-25

held on January 70, 1SlI, reSolutioi,
offered by Judge Norton, which had
for its object full investigation OF
Judge Moncure's conduct in office, as
we'll as the divorce situation, includ-
ing all of the charges made by Mr.;
Stuart against Judge Moncure, and
any other matters that might be
brought before the Committee, was
defeated by q vote of thirteen to
eight, and the committee was there
by specifically and strictly limited IN
it's authority to investigate only the
alleged divorce evil.
Although not authorized to inVesti-
gate Judge Moncure's conduct, except
as it related to the divorce situation,
but being inhibited by the defeat of
the Norton resolution, the commit
tee did permit Mr.. Stuart to offer all
the evidence that he had to substan-
tiate his other charges, to-wit:
Political activities and machi-
nations.
LACK of qualification, legal and
otherwise.
3-Failure to sustain the dignity OF
the high office he held, and failure to
exact the respect due to that office.
The reason for permitting Mr..
Stuart to transcend the authority con-
ferred upon the committee by the bar
association was to make public all the
evidence upon which these charges
rested. Mr.. Stuart frankly stated
that he had no interest in an investlga-
ton of divorce conditions but was
solely interested in an investigation
of Judge Moncure with view to get
ting him off the bench. In the hear
ing of testimony not relating to the
divorce situation, it soon became ap-
parent that private quarrel existing
between Mr.. Stuart and Judge Mon
cure actuated the former in making
his charges against the latter. In view
of the strictly limited authority with
which the committee was purposely
vested by the Bar Association, we can
make no finding or recommendation
on any of the three charges mentioned
above.
Divorce Conditions.
From Maya, 1920, the date OF
Judge Moncure's elevation to the
bench, to February 10, 1922, the date
of the report of the subcommittee
composed of Messrs Cation, Smith and
Carlin, it appears that a totoal OF
1913 divorce suits were filed or dis
posed of. Of this number, DEGREES
rranting either an absolute or 4 limit
ed divorce were entered in 755, about
200 were pending and the remainder
dismissed. In more than seven-elghths
of these cases the ground alleged was
desertion. About one-third of the de-
PENDANTS received no notice Of the suit,
the notice of publication having been
returned, The records discloses that
several persons testified as to the
domicile and residence of the complain
ant in an Extraordinarily large num-
Der of cases, Mrs. Mary L. Baggett
appeared as a resident witness in
152 cases in the Corporation Court;
Mrs, Stella Bensel testified in q
cases; Robert Luckett in Il cases;
Mollie Sue Lowe in II cases, and
Frances Ballenger in 8 cases. Accord
ing to the testimony of these wit
nesses, who have appeared so often
in divorce suits as to earn for them
selves the designation of profession
al witnesses" a tabulation of dates
discloses the fact that 124 persons,
male and female, resided, or were
domiciled at the home of Mrs. Bag
gett during the month of August,
1920; 81 at the house of Mrs. Bensel;
81 with Robert Luckett, 10 with Molly
Sue Lowe, and with Frances Bal
lenger. An even dozen other witnesses
testified from five to seven times and
thirty-three other persons appeared
from two to five times.
In many cases the evidence appeared
to the committee to be weak as to de-
sertion as we'll as to domicile and resi-
dence, whilst in many others various
sorts Of irregularities were apparent
on the face of the record which we con-
not too strongly condemn as loose
and careless practice. For example,
the use of so-called narrative form
depositions,-in substance merely at
fiGavits, = instead of the usual
form of questions and answers
by certain attorneys, as well as their
practice Of certifying as notary pub
lie in the jurat to bill signed by the
complainant by counsel that the COM
plainant personally appeared, we be-
lieve to be proper subjects for ctiti-
cism. Erasures and interlineations
appear frequently in sworn docu-
ments, and papers are missing in
some cases. In few cases irregulari-
ties of more serious nature seem
to have been practiced. 1t is such
things as these-methods employed,
presumably, for the sake of conven-
ience-that have facilitated the quick
and easy procurement of divorces and
contributed to a deplorable situation.
During the period covered by the
committees investigation, Alexandria
has been more or less congested by a
transient population of men and
women engaged in newly established
industrial and governmental enter
prises relating to the war. Wash
ington (where the equity docket dis
closes the fact that over 10 per cent
of the cases are for divorce), which
normally contributes large quota OF
divorce seekers on account OF the
strict law governing divorce in the
District of Columbia, has suffered
from a similar situation to an even